Q: I'm a console gamer that hasn't played the original Crysis. Will you explain the story from the original game?

A: The idea is to make sure that Crysis 2 stands on its own as a narrative. I've never much liked fiction that demands and depends upon a fannish knowledge of the franchise so far. To my mind that's not good story-telling, it's just product chunking. If I've done my job well, you should be able to pick up the controller knowing nothing about previous Crysis games and just plunge straight in.

Yes Richard. I fully agree. Thats why i was completely disappointed with the Harry potter series, Lord of the Rings etc. You know... those stories that made millions. They disgust me.

Simply because they follow an actual story. I would rather them have taken your approuch. You know. Just chuck in random sh1t. Who needs to follow a story. Like you said, its just product chunking. WTF ever that means.

Surely the great story tellers of our time were all wrong. Besides, it keeps stuff interesting your way.

For instance to those who dont get it. Let me write a story this way. You will see it makes far more sense.


One day there was a man called Nomad. He was fighting an alien invasion. On his way to end this invasion once and for all... one day there was a man called mute. He was a soldier that couldnt speak. There were aliens. He is going to kill them. He infiltrated the alien mothership and then... one day there was this chinese soldier. He lost his dad to aliens attacking earth. He wanted revenge so bad... one day there was this random fking story.

See. As long as the word aliens appear in each section, then the story makes perfect sense.

What are you whining about?
Are you being sarcastic? It's not clear on the Internet.
You're a terrible story teller.
If you can't understand Crysis 2's plot, then I feel sorry for you.

This thread svcks. I'm going to un-svck it.

I am being sarcastic. Having a mentality of the above mentioned person to write the story = fail.
And no... you clearly misunderstand. Its not hard to follow the Crysis 2 story. Its just that the story does not follow the Crysis 1 story. As the countless other threads regarding this mentioned.

But those threads failed to prove why the story does not follow. Again, see above mentioned persons opinion on why.

Also. Color blind cat is awesome.

PS. I know that the story i told was terrible. That was to prove how the crysis story works. It jumps from one pointless thing to the next. There is never really an ending. Just random crap.

I agree with the OP - the story jettisoned too much of the Crysis narrative. In fact I found the story fairly weak considering there was a proper writer on-board this time.

Alright, Prophet, Strickland, Lingshan Mission a.s.o. isn't enough to patch up the stories, right? I would even say, that Crysis 1's story made a bit more sense with Crysis 2. What the Lingshan Mission was about, why the Koreans got the Nanosuit, too (that's just a guess, but it would make sense), what happened to Prophet in the sphere. The only thing I don't think was good, was that Nomad and Psycho weren't even mentioned. But beside that, I'd say both stories are combined well, making a good whole plot.

But how can it make a good whole plot?
There is such a huge gap. I mean even the aliens are completely different. Why the ice? Why the cold weapons?
There is just too big a gap to even call it a plot. There are too many questions. Everything, the entire Crysis Universe was changed with the second.

I can understand if they wanted console players to pick up the story without worrying about the first. But why abandon every single aspect of the original. The only thing thats the same is the name prophet.

Lingshan was about locating large masses of Ceph technology that was still active rather than dormant as located in other parts of the globe. The Admiral mentions the energy spike, whatshisface on lingshan mentioned other "artifacts" before being turned into a human icicle.

I also doubt that Crytek had a second game in mind when they created the story for the first, meaning they could just put random stuff in that was cool. C2 looks at the nanosuit in more depth, C3 will tie everything together...

...if it doesn't, THEN we have a problem.

Well lets hold thumbs that it does Tie everything together. And most of all, lets hope we get to see noman and or psycho again.
This mute grunt svcks.

Well lets hold thumbs that it does Tie everything together. And most of all, lets hope we get to see noman and or psycho again.
This mute grunt svcks.

I agree, but to illustrate the real changes from N1 to N2 the main guy had to be within an inch of his life, letting the Nanosuit take over vital bodily functions, something we can assume the N1 could not do. The fact that Prophet and Alcatraz's mentality meld into one whole at the end demonstrates the N2's ability to take on a personality of its own.

Put simply, we wouldn't see the depth of N2 without Alcatraz being a mute. Did i like it? No. Do i understand why? Yes.

How fcking ironic that Richard Morgan doesn't approve of "fannish product chunking," yet in order to bridge the gap between Crysis and Crysis 2, you are required to buy and read a book/series of comic books written solely to plug the many, many plot-holes between Crysis and Crysis 2

Well lets hold thumbs that it does Tie everything together. And most of all, lets hope we get to see noman and or psycho again.
This mute grunt svcks.

I agree, but to illustrate the real changes from N1 to N2 the main guy had to be within an inch of his life, letting the Nanosuit take over vital bodily functions, something we can assume the N1 could not do. The fact that Prophet and Alcatraz's mentality meld into one whole at the end demonstrates the N2's ability to take on a personality of its own.

Put simply, we wouldn't see the depth of N2 without Alcatraz being a mute. Did i like it? No. Do i understand why? Yes.

I disagree. There are a thousand different ways to tell the same story, and any number of devices could have been introduced into the plot to illustrate the N2's symbiotic ability without foisting a nameless, faceless, utterly boring protagonist on us.

First of all, there was never a reason not to give Alcatraz a face. Plenty of opportunities presented themselves during the game for Alcatraz's face to be shown, the first of which being when Prophet pulls his "dying" body out of the harbor. And the whole punctured lungs = no voice thing is paper thin. If the N2 is a symbiotic life-support machine, how about just allow it to hold together Alc's lungs together enough for him to gurgle out some dialogue?

He was silenced cos the story was a rehash of a mr morgan old story with nano suits slapped on to make crysisy

Richard Morgan is just giving an excuse not to do any research on the original Crysis.

If you are making a sequel you need to build on the existing story, otherwise Crytek should have created an new IP.

By the way, both Crysis and Warhead had better stories than Crysis 2.

The protagonist is the suit, not Alcatraz, not Prophet, not Psycho, and definitely not Nomad. This is being said all the way through the second one, and you would also know this from Crysis 1, although not to the extend that is shown in Crysis 2.

The protagonist is the suit, not Alcatraz, not Prophet, not Psycho, and definitely not Nomad. This is being said all the way through the second one, and you would also know this from Crysis 1, although not to the extend that is shown in Crysis 2.

lol, the protagonist is not the suit. that's ridiculous. the suit is not even a character, let alone the leading character. the suit is a plot device. nothing more.

In Crysis, Nomad is the protagonist. In Warhead, Psycho is the protagonist. In Crysis 2, Alcatraz is the protagonist. The nano-suit is no more the protagonist than the SCAR is the love interest.

The protagonist is the suit, not Alcatraz, not Prophet, not Psycho, and definitely not Nomad. This is being said all the way through the second one, and you would also know this from Crysis 1, although not to the extend that is shown in Crysis 2.

lol, the protagonist is not the suit. that's ridiculous. the suit is not even a character, let alone the leading character. the suit is a plot device. nothing more.
Nope.
The suit will be the constant throughout the Crysis series.

Look at the cover of Crysis 1. Look at the cover of Crysis 2. You see no faces. It could be Alcatraz, Prophet or Nomad in them. Crysis is Crysis because of the suit.

From what I've read of the novel so far it seems that the suit is the hero.
The suit only needs a body (or corpse) to function, because Crynet couldn't make a system which links together all of the suit's functions.

As 90% of us know, Alcatraz is pretty much dead at the end, and he was replaced by you-know-who. The thing is, it is really the suit which is Alcatraz's new brain. It's just that the suit has the memories and mental qualities of you-know-who.

From what I've read of the novel so far it seems that the suit is the hero.
I don't mind that. But when they make the suit have Jesus-Qualities, it gets somewhat...ridiculous? I don't know what to call it. But it sounds like God actually made the damn thing, when it's just a piece of hardware. OMG..IT KEEPING DEAD GUY ALIVE? OMG...WAKE UP MARINE NO TIEM FUR DYING TROLOLOL. ASSIMILIAT CUMPLETE...LOL ASS-IMMILATION CUM-PLETE.

As 90% of us know, Alcatraz is pretty much dead at the end, and he was replaced by you-know-who.
NO WAY. LORD VOLDEMORT?!?11!!

From what I've read of the novel so far it seems that the suit is the hero.
I don't mind that. But when they make the suit have Jesus-Qualities, it gets somewhat...ridiculous? I don't know what to call it. But it sounds like God actually made the damn thing, when it's just a piece of hardware. OMG..IT KEEPING DEAD GUY ALIVE? OMG...WAKE UP MARINE NO TIEM FUR DYING TROLOLOL. ASSIMILIAT CUMPLETE...LOL ASS-IMMILATION CUM-PLETE.

As 90% of us know, Alcatraz is pretty much dead at the end, and he was replaced by you-know-who.
NO WAY. LORD VOLDEMORT?!?11!!
The suit doesn't keep the user alive. It just keeps them intact and uses their nervous system.

Also, yes, Voldemort replaces Alcatraz. I had hoped to not spoil it, but it's too late now

I have to agree that the suit is now the hero. Apperently it now has a mind of his own.
The question is... does it sing lalabyes when the person inside wants to take a nap?

The protagonist is the suit, not Alcatraz, not Prophet, not Psycho, and definitely not Nomad. This is being said all the way through the second one, and you would also know this from Crysis 1, although not to the extend that is shown in Crysis 2.

lol, the protagonist is not the suit. that's ridiculous. the suit is not even a character, let alone the leading character. the suit is a plot device. nothing more.
Nope.
The suit will be the constant throughout the Crysis series.

Look at the cover of Crysis 1. Look at the cover of Crysis 2. You see no faces. It could be Alcatraz, Prophet or Nomad in them. Crysis is Crysis because of the suit.

From what I've read of the novel so far it seems that the suit is the hero.
The suit only needs a body (or corpse) to function, because Crynet couldn't make a system which links together all of the suit's functions.

As 90% of us know, Alcatraz is pretty much dead at the end, and he was replaced by you-know-who. The thing is, it is really the suit which is Alcatraz's new brain. It's just that the suit has the memories and mental qualities of you-know-who.

Just because the suit is a constant throughout the series doesn't mean that it is the protagonist. Like I said, the SCAR is a constant throughout the series too. What's that, then? The side-kick?

I see what you're saying, but an inanimate object cannot be a protagonist. Sure, the suit is symbiotic. The possibility that the suit is absorbing souls or whatever is hinted at at the end of Crysis 2. If the suit becomes sentient in Crysis 3 (keyword: becomes), then it may be considered a protagonist. But in Crysis, in Warhead, and in Crysis 2 the suit is an inanimate object. Take the man out of the suit and what happens? Does the suit keep on fighting? No.

The possibility that the suit will become some sort of amalgam of dead soldiers' souls (lol) does open up the option of making it a protagonist in future releases, but for now, it's just a suit.

*edit* Play Warhead again, gauge the amount of character development that went into Psycho, and then tell me that his clothes are the protagonist. The picture on the box means nothing. Even Nomad has enough of a personality to be considered a decent protagonist. Alcatraz is another story, but remember that, despite his utter lack of personality, almost every line of dialogue directed at him is emphasized with his name (or Prophet's name early on). "Alcatraz, do this. Alcatraz, do that." Not "Nano-suit, do this! Nano-suit, do that!" Or even, to a less ridiculous extent, just plain old "Do this! Do that." See what I'm saying?

Ok guy. I think that Alcatraz has no face and doesn't speak, so that we could "feel" like we are him.

Ok guy. I think that Alcatraz has no face and doesn't speak, so that we could "feel" like we are him. If this was intended, then I find it ironic for Richard Morgan to be bashing Halo and it's silent protagonist.

But that's not important. This, Morgan dude kicked the franchise out the door. The biggest mistakes he made were (in my opinion):
That he didn't fill the 3 year gap. He should have done it before the release of Crysis 2. I don't know an animated movie, a little web series,... SOMETHING!
And that he got rid of the original cast. I hope, from the bottom of my hart that NoMad and Psycho will be back, because i really don't like Alcatraz. But as we keep going, with no mention of them, I feel more and more like the franchise that I "fell in love with" is fading away.
Plus the god damn silence from Crytek about everything is making me so mad. How didn't they realize the new story svcks soo much?

Ok guy. I think that Alcatraz has no face and doesn't speak, so that we could "feel" like we are him. If this was intended, then I find it ironic for Richard Morgan to be bashing Halo and it's silent protagonist.
He is? Well, I don't know anymore.

I couldn't tell that I don't like Alcatraz, because I don't know him. But, I could tell that I don't like Nomad, because he is everyone's bich. Look, he is beeing commanded around way more then Alcatraz is. Even by people he doesn't know. Some idiot comes by: "DEFEAT THE AA TURRETS" and Nomad: "Of Course, dude. May I bake some cookies for you?".

Making Alcatraz silent doesn't make him a good character, but he can't be declared bad by the things he said. He is neutral, leaving space of imagination (if there's any in your heads at all). Nomad didn't, Psycho didn't. They are well designed characters with personalities. But I would rather read a book instead of let a game tell me a story. In Crysis: Legion, Alcatraz has a voice, + personlity, so if you want to judge him by that, read the book first.

What did I expect with Crysis 2? Knowing the first's story would make me superior then those, who don't. That happened. Of course I would have the gap filled (although it's been half filled with the Crysis 2 flashbacks) and there's currently a modder working on a Crysis Wars mod, to explain what (might) happened. But anything official would make me more happy. Although there is a slight difference in the two's stories, I think the second is superior, and makes Crysis 1 making more sense, and even makes it better.