Reading these forums and the criteria you use to determine if gameplay is 'consolized' Makes me wonder if you actually played any FPS before Crysis 2, as the standards you hold are all rather... overoptimistic, and I can't think of a single shooter that actually satisfies all (Or even 2-3) of the above.

Complex story: Obviously if the story isn't a steven King masterpiece then it's so stupid console gamers can understand it, not because FPS generally have bad stories?

None linear gameplay, or not a 'corridor shooter': You know like Farcry 2, yea that game was soooo good right?

Complex controls: Because pressing a button to shoot is so console focused nowdays, all PC games make you have to manually reload all your weapons, with the reload button sequence being different for each weapon right?

AI that's smarter then humans: Who cares if nobody has managed to make a perfect AI yet, Crytek should be able to!

Yet these criteria can't be held to any of the classic PC games. Take for instance HL2

HL2.

Complex Story.... Not really. Aliens come from another dimension, you shoot them in the face under orders of several different people. Occasionally a good guy turns bad and visa versa, and occasionally you shoot people in the face with other people (Gravity gun was cool)

None linear gameplay: Nope. HL2 is even more linear then Crysis 2. Even crysis 1 was a corridor shooter, just the corridor was considerably larger and had trees in it.

Complex controls: Again, HL2 has less to worry about then Crysis 2.

AI: Again worse then Crysis 2, was rather the doom style of 'run towards player'. At least crysis 2 they try to use cover and occasionally flank you.

Therefore by the gamecritic of the majority of idiots on these forums, HL2 was obviously a console port.

Note we're talking gameplay here, not graphics, it doesn't matter how old the game was, gameplay standards never change (All upgrades do is make gameplay look better).

BIS arguably have the best AI in its very literal definition available...but that makes the game so damn CPU intensive its not funny...

On all points, i concur.

HL2 wasn't a console port. It was just over-rated big time, just like C2, for reasons explained above. However, Crysis as a series was brought to same level with this overrated fps, because it had to be made console-fit in both hardware and gameplay sense.

Crysis had "levels" or "maps". Not corridors. There's just as huge difference between those two as there is with "levels" and open world.

http://tengofriki.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/5aac7_fps_leveldesign_932010-550x454.jpg

Except HL2 is from 2004 and was meant to be a corridor shooter.... That game was revolutionary when it comes to storytelling in games... And, the story's actually pretty good and creative.

Crysis 2 goes back on everything Crysis was for the sake of consoles, and that's not even what makes it a console port. What makes it a console port is evidence that seems to suggest that it's just that. For instance, don't even try to debate that the menues themselves are directly ported over from the consoles, because they are.

Lol, the console kiddies are so funny when they try to dis Crysis 1. Of course, they've probably never even played a real PC game.

HL2 is generally considered one of the best FPS on the PC, there's a reason why people keep poking Valve for EP3, unlike the Crysis 2 community, which seem to think otherwise about their game.

Again the HL2 story wasn't really anything special, but during all this I'm not saying HL2 was bad, infact I'm sayijng the opposite: The fact is people seem to expect far too much from Crysis 2 gameplay, and the complaints that it's consolized seem to stem from the fact that it isn't a crysis 1 clone (Which although technically amazing, wasn't that great of a game, the controls were too fiddly to be experimental with, and a lot of the gameplay was very repetitive.)

Also for the idiot who's saying I'm a console kiddy: I take your claim, and raise you a Doom 1 Episode 1 + 2 UV max speed run (Using skulltag) in 5:44 and 4:31 respectively. GL coming even close to that (You can even TAS it with Strafe50.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVyE9e9na8A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tx-ycMM2nI

HL1 was an example of a good corridor shooter. IMO HL2 wasn't.

How about thinking it this way: What console port suffers as much from related flaws as C2? Not HL2, I'm sure.

Nice vids btw

Reading these forums and the criteria you use to determine if gameplay is 'consolized' Makes me wonder if you actually played any FPS before Crysis 2, as the standards you hold are all rather... overoptimistic, and I can't think of a single shooter that actually satisfies all (Or even 2-3) of the above.

Complex story: Obviously if the story isn't a steven King masterpiece then it's so stupid console gamers can understand it, not because FPS generally have bad stories?

None linear gameplay, or not a 'corridor shooter': You know like Farcry 2, yea that game was soooo good right?

Complex controls: Because pressing a button to shoot is so console focused nowdays, all PC games make you have to manually reload all your weapons, with the reload button sequence being different for each weapon right?

AI that's smarter then humans: Who cares if nobody has managed to make a perfect AI yet, Crytek should be able to!

Yet these criteria can't be held to any of the classic PC games. Take for instance HL2

HL2.

Complex Story.... Not really. Aliens come from another dimension, you shoot them in the face under orders of several different people. Occasionally a good guy turns bad and visa versa, and occasionally you shoot people in the face with other people (Gravity gun was cool)

None linear gameplay: Nope. HL2 is even more linear then Crysis 2. Even crysis 1 was a corridor shooter, just the corridor was considerably larger and had trees in it.

Complex controls: Again, HL2 has less to worry about then Crysis 2.

AI: Again worse then Crysis 2, was rather the doom style of 'run towards player'. At least crysis 2 they try to use cover and occasionally flank you.

Therefore by the gamecritic of the majority of idiots on these forums, HL2 was obviously a console port.

Note we're talking gameplay here, not graphics, it doesn't matter how old the game was, gameplay standards never change (All upgrades do is make gameplay look better).

Wow comparing a 2004 game to a 2011 game, can you fail this much?

Ignoring that HL2 was a cutting edge tech game in 04 I'm not sure what the point is...... It surely can't be related to the fact that Crysis 2 (2011) is visually inferior to it's predecessor: Crysis from 2007.

Anyone who think's otherwise are wecome to PM me and receive help to set up their unrestricted Crysis 1 to their personal satisfaction.

+42 for OP.

I agree 100%.
Crysis 2 is not a console port.
If anything its a PC port made for consoles.
Syphon Filter is a good example look at the maps of then and compare with now.

I agree 100%.
Crysis 2 is not a console port.
If anything its a PC port made for consoles.

Yep, you obviously had to "press enter" and "adjust your monitor" on your xbox and all..

You've obviously don't understand the subject of this topic.

Yea a lot of people don't understand what I'm getting at.

It doesn't matter what year the game came out, Quake 3 came out over 10 years ago, and is still unrivaled in fast paced FPS gameplay. CS 1.6 was even older, and that's one of the most popular FPS to date. Gameplay isn't restricted by technology, unless you're talking about something that defines it's genera (For instance comparing doom gameplay to Crysis 2 would be unfair, due to the technical limitations + Doom was one of the first FPS.)

Heck HL2 episode 2 came out not that long ago, and still has the issues I posted in the OP. You can also apply the same criteria to other PC classics like Stalker, Bioshock quake, etc etc. Even portal, the most universally loved PC game, was technically linear.

Also Ofc a modded Crysis 1 is going to look better then a unmodded anything, just due to the fact that modders don't have to worry about stability, keeping FPS high on most computers and keeping texture sizes below 500 GB. And vannila Crysis 2 looks better then it's vannila predecessor, and runs on more computers.

Yea a lot of people don't understand what I'm getting at.

It doesn't matter what year the game came out, Quake 3 came out over 10 years ago, and is still unrivaled in fast paced FPS gameplay. CS 1.6 was even older, and that's one of the most popular FPS to date. Gameplay isn't restricted by technology, unless you're talking about something that defines it's genera (For instance comparing doom gameplay to Crysis 2 would be unfair, due to the technical limitations + Doom was one of the first FPS.)

Heck HL2 episode 2 came out not that long ago, and still has the issues I posted in the OP. You can also apply the same criteria to other PC classics like Stalker, Bioshock quake, etc etc. Even portal, the most universally loved PC game, was technically linear.

Also Ofc a modded Crysis 1 is going to look better then a unmodded anything, just due to the fact that modders don't have to worry about stability, keeping FPS high on most computers and keeping texture sizes below 500 GB. And vannila Crysis 2 looks better then it's vannila predecessor, and runs on more computers.

Deep down they understand. They just want something to grasp on to to have a "logical" argument in their own minds. I mean, for example, arguing about one single subject while completely ignoring the rest of the post. Or questioning the date as if it mattered, at all. The rage wagon is deceiving and full of dumbies.