Simple question, is this a watered down game thrown at the PC via CryEngine 3?

From everything i've read this isn't a heavily PC centric game but far more console gamer orientated.

- Smaller level design (console port)
- Glitchy AI + pathfinding (console port / limited resources)
- Low quality textures / limited graphics options (console port / CryEngine 3 limitation)
- NO DX11 (console port / CryEngine 3 limitation)
- Removal of certain features present in C1 such as suit modes (Console port / dumbing down)
- Map glitches (console port)

What is everyone's experience with the above? I've held off purchasing this game because it really does look like a console port to me. I can wait for BF3 and carry on playing BFBC2 (which has a lot of features C2 doesn't have) if this game isn't up to a true PC gamers level.

I'm not buying ports anymore, as much as i enjoyed C1 and Warhead, i refuse to support devs being lazy and not creating a game direct for PC and then dumbing it down for console gamers.

So opinions please? Is the above true?

Is the above true?

Absolutely.

With your preferences taken into account, I'd stay well clear of this if I were you.

It's not true, it's all a figment of your imagination.

IF EA **** up BF3 i think i might just throw away my PC and get a console as i will then beleive it is the end of PC gaming...

Read the reviews. All in the 90's. Don't listen to the forum trolls. Most haven't even played the game. Graphics are better than the original.

-Thanks!

-I also don't have an imagination!

-I hope DICE/EA have more sense than this.

-Read metacritic scores, review sites get paid to review so ignore them totally / read the lower scores to get a more accurate picture. Hence i popped on here to ask the guys playing the game.

Read the reviews. All in the 90's. Don't listen to the forum trolls. Most haven't even played the game. Graphics are better than the original.

Did you even play the original? The graphics in C2 are at best on par with, and at worst a downgrade from the graphics in the original Crysis.

The review sites were either paid or were reviewing it on Xbox. Someone who's only played other Xbox shooters WOULD be blown away by this game. Someone who's played the original Crysis will be disappointed, for a variety of reasons, not just graphics.

Read the reviews. All in the 90's. Don't listen to the forum trolls. Most haven't even played the game. Graphics are better than the original.
Right, in fact, if anyone has any discrepancy at all with Crysis 2, assume they haven't played it.

Crysis 2 was sooooo LEET EPIC, it just topped MW2 as the best game ever made!

Don't listen to the forum trolls. Most haven't even played the game.

And you know they haven't played the game, how?

Anyway, Edge haven't reviewed the game yet. I eagerly await what they have to say about it.

Crysis 2 was sooooo LEET EPIC, it just topped MW2 as the best game ever made!

MW2 wasn't a great memory for me as a PC gamer. In fact i'd rather like to think i learned something from that mistake

It’s not the graphics that get me... I understand it's a "good looking" game on the surface, Explosions look great, and at a glance most environments look great...

But there is no destructible environment (no bullet holes in the things like road cones). Trees don't react to being shot most of the time and after they fall it's as if they aren’t even there (you can walk thru them and don't even hear a sound). Same with bushes etc... pot holes in the pavement that are just painted on (grenades and bodies that sit in mid air when on a "pot hole", characters don't step down or move down at all when walking over them. Very very small level design, very linear. I could go on...

Don't get me wrong, its fun. Played the SP all the way through and found it as much fun as CoD or Halo, but I felt like I just played CoD or Halo... This is not what I expected from a successor to Crysis, that's all.

Simple question, is this a watered down game thrown at the PC via CryEngine 3?

From everything i've read this isn't a heavily PC centric game but far more console gamer orientated.

- Smaller level design (console port)
- Glitchy AI + pathfinding (console port / limited resources)
- Low quality textures / limited graphics options (console port / CryEngine 3 limitation)
- NO DX11 (console port / CryEngine 3 limitation)
- Removal of certain features present in C1 such as suit modes (Console port / dumbing down)
- Map glitches (console port)

What is everyone's experience with the above? I've held off purchasing this game because it really does look like a console port to me. I can wait for BF3 and carry on playing BFBC2 (which has a lot of features C2 doesn't have) if this game isn't up to a true PC gamers level.

I'm not buying ports anymore, as much as i enjoyed C1 and Warhead, i refuse to support devs being lazy and not creating a game direct for PC and then dumbing it down for console gamers.

So opinions please? Is the above true?


Sadly yes, everything you just said is true. If you want a CoD style game you will honestly love this. If you want wide open areas, next gen graphics to last or a decent challange in SP then honestly I'd advise another game. Maybe Stalker CoP? That game is actually more true to Crysis then this.

Read the reviews. All in the 90's. Don't listen to the forum trolls. Most haven't even played the game. Graphics are better than the original.

Did you even play the original? The graphics in C2 are at best on par with, and at worst a downgrade from the graphics in the original Crysis.

The review sites were either paid or were reviewing it on Xbox. Someone who's only played other Xbox shooters WOULD be blown away by this game. Someone who's played the original Crysis will be disappointed, for a variety of reasons, not just graphics.

I love how when someone doesn't agree with a review they accuse them of being payed off. All 21 metacritic reviewers and all 15 gamerankings.com reviewers were payed off? What about the games they give **** scores too? Crysis to looks better, that's a fact. You're just a sheep following the herd. You just over hyped the game for yourself and set yourself up to be let down.


Look at this thread. http://www.gamesas.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=14005 Your perceived memories are overtaking reality. I do own the original. It doesn't look or play as good as the second. And the gameplay in the second is WAY more fun. It's not a console port. The PC version looks and plays a lot better. I have the xbox version also. People just have a bug up their ass because it's no longer a PC exclusive. Get over it. It's business. There's more money to be made on consoles.

And the reason I say that most of the trolls haven't played Crysis 2 is because they say it looks like crap, when it doesn't. They call it a console port, and if you play it on PC it's pretty clear that the PC version is superior. And they complain about missing features that aren't actually missing.

It doesn't look or play as good as the second. And the gameplay in the second is WAY more fun.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, and strongly. The gameplay in the first Crysis was much more fun. I'm not sure what you can find more entertaining about Crysis 2's gameplay.

LOL, uh Borss? You're clearly not aware of the precedents that had transpired in that thread you linked, such as all the evidence in it aside from the OP pointing in the POLAR OPPOSITE direction of the point your trying to make?

IE, evidence that is damning to the notion that Crysis 2 has higher graphics then Crysis 1.

PC gamer gave Crysis 2 a fair review, they gave it an 89 which made sense to me because they also gave crysis 1 a 98. They didn't say it with words, but crysis 2 is definitely a downgrade. Most reviewers are under pressure to give big games good reviews anyway. Personally I'd give it an 85, its a decent game but certainly not a great game and nowhere near the level crysis 1 and warhead were at.

Too bad Borss will disregard every point you make Net, it's a shame really.

It doesn't look or play as good as the second. And the gameplay in the second is WAY more fun.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, and strongly. The gameplay in the first Crysis was much more fun. I'm not sure what you can find more entertaining about Crysis 2's gameplay.

Not having to fumble with the nanosuit wheel, slide tackles, stealth attacks, vertical game play, more nanosuit abilities, the game runs smoother, and more variety in the locals are just a few reasons.

Crysis 2 was sooooo LEET EPIC, it just topped MW2 as the best game ever made!

I really hope you weren't seriously saying that MW2 is the best game ever? In terms of story, it was awesome, but REALLY short, in terms of multiplayer, it was MW1 except you had to pay 60$ to get rid of the bugs/unbalanced weapons left in that multiplayer.

PC gamer gave Crysis 2 a fair review, they gave it an 89 which made sense to me because they also gave crysis 1 a 98. They didn't say it with words, but crysis 2 is definitely a downgrade. Most reviewers are under pressure to give big games good reviews anyway. Personally I'd give it an 85, its a decent game but certainly not a great game and nowhere near the level crysis 1 and warhead were at.

I'd give it at most a 70 in its current state. That might get pushed to 80 if there's a good PC features patch. But a lot of what is killing the game for me isn't something they can fix with a patch, because it involves the design of the levels, etc., and the whole approach to the campaign.

Not having to fumble with the nanosuit wheel, slide tackles, stealth attacks, vertical game play, more nanosuit abilities, the game runs smoother, and more variety in the locals are just a few reasons.

-Nanowheel wasn't that big of a deal, but I agree that having the hotkeys is a bit more convenient. Either way, something this minor isn't going to make or break a game for me.

-Slide Tackles - again, this is relatively minor. They could have added this without compromising the original gameplay elements in Crysis.

-Stealth Attacks - See slide tackles.

-Vertical gameplay - I assume you mean up and down, since you're on skyscraqers and such? I guess. But the open-map gameplay from Crysis and Far Cry was much more fun than being able to go up and down. Again, they could have maintained the vertical gameplay without sacrificing the good things from Crysis.

-Game runs smoother - at too high a cost, IMO. Again, this is something that CryEngine 3 was supposed to enable without sacrificing the quality elements from Crysis.

-More variety in the local(e?)s - To be honest, I don't think it's any more varied than the original Crysis. You're in a city the whole time, just like you were on an island the whole time in Crysis (except at the end, when you were on an aircraft carrier).

Another big beef for me was the story - are the aliens in Crysis 2 the same ones from the original? Because they seem very different (red highlights, no freeze technology, etc.).

Was the nanosuit wheel really that difficult to negotiate?

Also, 'slide tackles' and 'air stomps' are on the same level as chainsaw duels, not really going one way or the other, just more stuff that honestly doesn't improve gameplay.

R40k, it was a joke, I was merely satirizing the prominent "CRYSIS IS AMAZING!!!" sentiment.

R40k, it was a joke, I was merely satirizing the prominent "CRYSIS IS AMAZING!!!" sentiment.

Oh good. I figured it was a joke, but with some of the children on this forum................. Heck I shouldn't be calling them children, I'm barely even out of childhood myself, but I can't find anything else to call some of the people on here, they act just like little squabbling kids!

It doesn't look or play as good as the second. And the gameplay in the second is WAY more fun.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, and strongly. The gameplay in the first Crysis was much more fun. I'm not sure what you can find more entertaining about Crysis 2's gameplay.

Not having to fumble with the nanosuit wheel, slide tackles, stealth attacks, vertical game play, more nanosuit abilities, the game runs smoother, and more variety in the locals are just a few reasons.

Proning, leaning, running at insane speeds, putting assault scopes on shotguns, fighting in wide open areas, grabbing enemies by the neck while shooting other enemies, throwing grenades right away without fumbling around with them first, faster and more responsive controls, duel wielding weapons, first person driving, being able to blow up any vehicle, choosing a different color HUD or different nanosuit voice, aiming down sights with laser sight attached, attaching laser sight and reflex sight, yeah thats the gameplay I miss. I hate this linear restrictive ****, Crysis 2 forces me to play a certain way, unlike crysis 2 which gave me true options.

Oh good. I figured it was a joke, but with some of the children on this forum................. Heck I shouldn't be calling them children, I'm barely even out of childhood myself, but I can't find anything else to call some of the people on here, they act just like little squabbling kids!
The fact that you didn't say '****', 'noob', 'wank', or 'True FAN!!!' to express your thoughts already makes you a lot older then them.

Proning, leaning, running at insane speeds, putting assault scopes on shotguns, fighting in wide open areas, grabbing enemies by the neck while shooting other enemies, throwing grenades right away without fumbling around with them first, faster and more responsive controls, duel wielding weapons, first person driving, being able to blow up any vehicle, choosing a different color HUD or different nanosuit voice, aiming down sights with laser sight attached, attaching laser sight and reflex sight, yeah thats the gameplay I miss. I hate this linear restrictive ****, Crysis 2 forces me to play a certain way, unlike crysis 2 which gave me true options.

In before "But Tac visor shows you tactical options!"

I despise that ****. No doubt a symptom of the mouthbreathing console audience that has to have its hand held for everything.