Gamespot failed, they chose water at the shore while in Crysis 2 they filmed a murky mess. I know for a fact that larger trees like palm trees can be destroyed in Crysis 2, the same goes for procedural destruction.

People will argue about the graphics because Crysis 1 aimed for photorealism while Crysis 2 had a more comic (Killzone) type of look to it. They have a whole different art styles, but C1 had details, view distance and really sharp textures which really made it look better from C2.

Since when is Crysis 1 photorealistic and Crysis 2 comic-book looking? Neither's visuals feel comic book-like and Crysis 2 has more realistic lighting and more real-looking character models than Crysis 1 had. The Marines in Crysis 1 looked cartoonish compared to Crysis 2 Marines.

Having higher res textures does not automatically mean a better looking game.

The first video *is* biased. Anyone who can't see that is in denial. Nice job finding one of those 5 trees we can actually destroy, though.

Btw, didn't gamespot do a detailed comparison? Much better and more true than this crap.
Gamespot is just as biased as this one is, only instead of choosing destructible objects in Crysis 2 they chose non-destructible objects.
Indeed. Like I said: Taking worst things from C2, and comparing it to best things in C1.

almost 50% of the trees in C2 can be destroyed (especially in MP), the other 50% can't because their just too thick. Taking them down with a simple rifle would just be too unrealistic. I don't think it was in C1... In my second video I showed you MUCH more of destruction than trees or windows. I showed that it DOESN'T lack any destruction, jeez. Ok, C1 has more destruction, I know that, but how could you implement this in C2? Taking down skyscraqers? C'mon don't be stupid.

I still don't get why my comparison is supposed to be biased... For you C1 fanboys, I gave more points to the first, then to the second game, and there's still whining about that. It's like you want me to do this: C1: 7 C2: 0, then you would be ok. But that's more biased then any other comparison. And wtf? You people want me to use MODS to compare the games? Mods don't offer the quality of the game itself, and until Crysis 2 get's no mods, comparing it to C1 mods is just idiotic and pointless. Like comparing a tuned car to a non tuned car by the same manufacturer.

Rly sad. 4 years of development and what do we get? small, linear maps, worse graphics, destruction and A.I. Thanks consoles.
PC-ers need to stop blaming consoles for the flaws of the PC versions. That's really dumb. It's devs faults, not consoles. Just look at tons of multiplat games like Dragon Age Origins, the PC version of that game is excellent, a lot better than the consoles versions. (on Metacritics: PC version 9.1, PS3 8.7 and 360 8.6)

Many people "forget" that although the numbers of trees you can shoot down is much lower compared to C1 but you can shoot many conrete pillars and barriers. These poeple just look at the trees and say:"Oh, C1 has MUCH better destructibility because I can shoot more trees than in C2!".

The first video *is* biased. Anyone who can't see that is in denial. Nice job finding one of those 5 trees we can actually destroy, though.

Btw, didn't gamespot do a detailed comparison? Much better and more true than this crap.
Gamespot is just as biased as this one is, only instead of choosing destructible objects in Crysis 2 they chose non-destructible objects.

When I played the SP the only time I noticed any destructibility over that of Duke Nukem 3D, was some concrete objects and the time I was laughing when I found a small tree I could actually cut. On another hand, some other concrete objects couldn't handle even bullet holes. (IIRC bullet holes were universal in Duke Nukem 3D.)

Other than that I was stupefied by everything that I could *not* react in any way. I can feel the physics and destructibility all the time in C1, but were more often reminded of the lack of it in C2. Some destructible items in completely static environment just doesn't cut it as a "destructible environment". No more than DN3D. That is why I can relate to the Gamespot's view quite well.

People will argue about the graphics because Crysis 1 aimed for photorealism while Crysis 2 had a more comic (Killzone) type of look to it. They have a whole different art styles, but C1 had details, view distance and really sharp textures which really made it look better from C2.

Since when is Crysis 1 photorealistic and Crysis 2 comic-book looking? Neither's visuals feel comic book-like and Crysis 2 has more realistic lighting and more real-looking character models than Crysis 1 had. The Marines in Crysis 1 looked cartoonish compared to Crysis 2 Marines.

Having higher res textures does not automatically mean a better looking game.

Here you go...

http://www.freakygaming.com/pc/action/crysis/reality_vs_ingame_comparison.html

I definitely agree with C1 being realistic and C2 cartoonish.

Funny thing those C1 "cartoons" actually blend into the near photo-realistic foliage like in no other game I've seen. I guess it's a matter of preference, but there have been comparisons about characters and their details in this forum, which show pretty much the opposite to your opinion.
Here's an example: http://www.gamesas.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=17689&start=0

C1 characters more cartoon than C2? Yeah, right.

Good video. Very clean and to the point. I was so disappointed when I first played Crysis 2, however as I kept playing and pushed the consolization aside, I have very muched enjoyed it. Just wished it didn't feel so much like the Call of Duty franchise. Still, very fun and I'm impressed with how much they did squeeze out of dx9. Again, great video with the comparisons.

C1 characters more cartoon than C2? Yeah, right.

So this is what you can say as an counter argumentation @ character from C2 vs C1? Rofl.... if you did read about CryEngine 3 enough then you would know that CE3 is rendering more realistic face models than CE2.

Also graphic which we can see in game it isn't full potential of CE3 engine, which was striped a bit to fit consoles, so there never was any real comparison of CE3 and CE2. Those "foto-realistic" pictures are quite bad tbh as for CE2, few of them look even plastic, like from some old game :X

Gamespot is just as biased as this one is, only instead of choosing destructible objects in Crysis 2 they chose non-destructible objects.

When I played the SP the only time I noticed any destructibility over that of Duke Nukem 3D, was some concrete objects and the time I was laughing when I found a small tree I could actually cut. On another hand, some other concrete objects couldn't handle even bullet holes. (IIRC bullet holes were universal in Duke Nukem 3D.)

Other than that I was stupefied by everything that I could *not* react in any way. I can feel the physics and destructibility all the time in C1, but were more often reminded of the lack of it in C2. Some destructible items in completely static environment just doesn't cut it as a "destructible environment". No more than DN3D. That is why I can relate to the Gamespot's view quite well.

People will argue about the graphics because Crysis 1 aimed for photorealism while Crysis 2 had a more comic (Killzone) type of look to it. They have a whole different art styles, but C1 had details, view distance and really sharp textures which really made it look better from C2.

Since when is Crysis 1 photorealistic and Crysis 2 comic-book looking? Neither's visuals feel comic book-like and Crysis 2 has more realistic lighting and more real-looking character models than Crysis 1 had. The Marines in Crysis 1 looked cartoonish compared to Crysis 2 Marines.

Having higher res textures does not automatically mean a better looking game.

Here you go...

http://www.freakygaming.com/pc/action/crysis/reality_vs_ingame_comparison.html

I definitely agree with C1 being realistic and C2 cartoonish.

Funny thing those C1 "cartoons" actually blend into the near photo-realistic foliage like in no other game I've seen. I guess it's a matter of preference, but there have been comparisons about characters and their details in this forum, which show pretty much the opposite to your opinion.
Here's an example: http://www.gamesas.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=17689&start=0

C1 characters more cartoon than C2? Yeah, right.

That is not a Crysis 1 vs Crysis 2 comparison in that link. If you want to argue maybe you should try actually showing a comparison of the two games in question.

When I played the SP the only time I noticed any destructibility over that of Duke Nukem 3D, was some concrete objects and the time I was laughing when I found a small tree I could actually cut. On another hand, some other concrete objects couldn't handle even bullet holes. (IIRC bullet holes were universal in Duke Nukem 3D.)

Other than that I was stupefied by everything that I could *not* react in any way. I can feel the physics and destructibility all the time in C1, but were more often reminded of the lack of it in C2. Some destructible items in completely static environment just doesn't cut it as a "destructible environment". No more than DN3D. That is why I can relate to the Gamespot's view quite well.

Since when is Crysis 1 photorealistic and Crysis 2 comic-book looking? Neither's visuals feel comic book-like and Crysis 2 has more realistic lighting and more real-looking character models than Crysis 1 had. The Marines in Crysis 1 looked cartoonish compared to Crysis 2 Marines.

Having higher res textures does not automatically mean a better looking game.

Here you go...

http://www.freakygaming.com/pc/action/crysis/reality_vs_ingame_comparison.html

I definitely agree with C1 being realistic and C2 cartoonish.

Funny thing those C1 "cartoons" actually blend into the near photo-realistic foliage like in no other game I've seen. I guess it's a matter of preference, but there have been comparisons about characters and their details in this forum, which show pretty much the opposite to your opinion.
Here's an example: http://www.gamesas.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=17689&start=0

C1 characters more cartoon than C2? Yeah, right.

That is not a Crysis 1 vs Crysis 2 comparison in that link. If you want to argue maybe you should try actually showing a comparison of the two games in question.
He won't, he knows he is wrong.

People seem to think that C2 has no destruction because it has a more realistic level of destruction, especially for a city, it is hard to blow up blocks of concrete, bullets do not saw down hardwood trees, buildings aren't brought down twice daily in warfare, especially ones made from concrete and steel.

i just finished crysis. both have repetitive level design. including buildings.


i don't get why it's biased. he shoots a tree in C1, he shoots a tree in C2. he ajusts his weapon in C1, he does in C2. it's can't be LESS biased.
besides, C2 isn't the crap you make it out to be. if i read these boards, i seem to be the only PC gamer who has a decent copy. granted, there are a few bugs here and there. in C1, when i aim down the sights against the Ceph with my sniper rifle, and i get to close, everything goes black in a Pait-esque way. still a bug. besides, when i cloak, 90% of the time helicopters still find me. they keep flying around me at unrealistic precision. that's an AI error too.

besides, strangely, a red dot sight is just fine for enemies (even when i aim straight at them) but they freak out with a flashlight.

just like Ceph flying into containers and the inherent problems with that in C1, plus that the small ceph in C1 are very, very obviously a regular object with a hovering model in it, in stead of a hovering regular model. C2 has no such thing. IMO, the Ceph in C2 move more fluently, including their models.


for me, C2 is to C1 as Supreme Commander 2 was to Supreme Commander 1. C2 is IMHO more playable. no need for lengthy walks. better playability and better use of the suit. in fact, C2 is IMHO more playable. the integration of the speed and strength module is much, much better and the Nanosuit 2 is a very good successor. the game itself is IMHO more fluent.

i just finished crysis. both have repetitive level design. including buildings.


i don't get why it's biased. he shoots a tree in C1, he shoots a tree in C2. he ajusts his weapon in C1, he does in C2. it's can't be LESS biased.
besides, C2 isn't the crap you make it out to be. if i read these boards, i seem to be the only PC gamer who has a decent copy. granted, there are a few bugs here and there. in C1, when i aim down the sights against the Ceph with my sniper rifle, and i get to close, everything goes black in a Pait-esque way. still a bug. besides, when i cloak, 90% of the time helicopters still find me. they keep flying around me at unrealistic precision. that's an AI error too.

besides, strangely, a red dot sight is just fine for enemies (even when i aim straight at them) but they freak out with a flashlight.

just like Ceph flying into containers and the inherent problems with that in C1, plus that the small ceph in C1 are very, very obviously a regular object with a hovering model in it, in stead of a hovering regular model. C2 has no such thing. IMO, the Ceph in C2 move more fluently, including their models.


for me, C2 is to C1 as Supreme Commander 2 was to Supreme Commander 1. C2 is IMHO more playable. no need for lengthy walks. better playability and better use of the suit. in fact, C2 is IMHO more playable. the integration of the speed and strength module is much, much better and the Nanosuit 2 is a very good successor. the game itself is IMHO more fluent.

This.

That is not a Crysis 1 vs Crysis 2 comparison in that link. If you want to argue maybe you should try actually showing a comparison of the two games in question.

So you just quoted the whole thing and didn't even read it? You can twist it, stretch and bend the issue, but it will remain. I hope it at least helps you sleep at night. kthxbai

That is not a Crysis 1 vs Crysis 2 comparison in that link. If you want to argue maybe you should try actually showing a comparison of the two games in question.

So you just quoted the whole thing and didn't even read it? You can twist it, stretch and bend the issue, but it will remain. I hope it at least helps you sleep at night. kthxbai

-The first model comparisons were comparing the main character of one game to a minor character that lives for all of 3 minutes in another. Developers always put more attention to detail into the main character. Hell, even Chino looked better than that guy.

-The korean enemy model definitely looks cartoonish. There is no denying that.

-There was no picture comparing marine models between the two games.

-The other pictures were close ups of individual aspects of the environment. This falls into the "can't see the forest for the trees" mindset. Some people are so busy looking at texture resolution they fail to look at the bigger picture.

You were right on one thing though, I did not see that link the first time. I just skimmed through what you typed because most of the time when I see a wall of text there isn't anything worth reading in it.

Sorry I didn't check out that link the first time. If I had I could have settled all of this with one post instead of two. No big deal to me. You see, despite what you obviously believe, there are people who play video games but don't lose any sleep over them.

hmm i tried shooting a car. it explodes.. but not like the video shown here. no door getting unhingd. what gives? only certain cars have destructible parts? either something is wrong with my game or something is wrong with the video.

DX11 patch incoming

This one is biased as hell. If you want to see a proper one search for the one Gamespot made which is commented by experts and C1 stands out as first in all their comparisons.


Not to mention this one is DX9 lol.

for me, C2 is to C1 as Supreme Commander 2 was to Supreme Commander 1.

You mean it destroyed a potentially great franchise and none of the original fans liked it? Because thats what SupCom 2 was to SupCom. Absolutely horrible and 10 steps backwards by comparison.

for me, C2 is to C1 as Supreme Commander 2 was to Supreme Commander 1.

You mean it destroyed a potentially great franchise and none of the original fans liked it? Because thats what SupCom 2 was to SupCom. Absolutely horrible and 10 steps backwards by comparison.


I have over 400 hours on Sup Com and can say i loved Sup Com 2...

Crysis 2 is fantastic! Crysis 1 is fantastic!

Crysis 1 is a huge sandbox with lots of space and fragile stuff.
Crysis 2 is a different place with less space and more tough stuff.

Go play Crysis 1 and try to blow up building that are built with concretes. You can't destroy them either.
Now in Crysis 2, there's more concretes! So obviously there's less stuff that you can destroy but at least you can blow up small pieces of wall which you completely can't in Crysis 1.

Going multi-platform is a good choice. That way they can earn more money and invest more into Crysis 3. Crytek is going the right way so we should have some faith.

There ARE places in Crysis 2, where a lot of the environment is destructible (and impressively so), but it's not on the same scope of destructibility as Crysis 1... That's all.