Can I be the first to point out that though Crysis is claimed to be this amazing open-world game that a lot of the space in the world was not used. At least by me anyway. There's an objective and I got to it. I don't explore every square inch of land and I'm sure many people don't. Ultimately I'm sure that people appreciate the space to approach situations differently and for the most part Crysis 2 kept that. What I feel is that many people liked the space provided in Crysis simply because it was there. So you could see into the distance and may actually be able to go there. But how does that benefit you and the objective? All Crysis 2 did was take that space and reduced it to an reasonable degree which could more or less be called the combat area.

All Crysis 2 did was take that space and reduced it to an reasonable degree which could more or less be called the combat area.

And that's why it faded out into the crowd amongst the rest of the mediocre fps games. Personally I used the large open spaces in the first, and had a lot of fun doing so. And I'm sure a lot of other people did too.

It's going the extra mile that makes a good thing an extraordinary thing.

All Crysis 2 did was take that space and reduced it to an reasonable degree which could more or less be called the combat area.

And that's why it faded out into the crowd amongst the rest of the mediocre fps games. Personally I used the large open spaces in the first, and had a lot of fun doing so. And I'm sure a lot of other people did too.

It's going the extra mile that makes a good thing an extraordinary thing.

I understand yet it doesn't change the fact that ultimately 50% of that open area is cosmetic. But the effort is nice.