I think the action-bubbles needed to be more 'open' (like Crysis Warhead), but I didn't mind a more focussed campaign. It is hardly an on-rails shooter like goddamn Black Ops (1 path with nothing but scripted events).

Yeah actually that's exactly what it is.

single player svcked.

alcatraz not talking in the game doesnt work, and doesnt fit in with this game. him having ruptured lungs isnt really an excuse because his lungs being ruptured served zero purpose in the game and could have easily taken that out with no affect on the game.
Alcatraz's ruptured lungs served to advance the whole plot thread of the suit's symbiosis and the whole post-human warrior ideal that Hargreave was aiming for with the suit.

Some decades ago companies didn't sell millions of copies of their games and also space was very limited in times when we used floppies or even CD's, but there was no excellent audio and video compression software on the market.

You do realize that by "silent protagonist" we don't literally mean that they just don't have audio? We mean a character that doesn't talk via audio or text. There were games back in the day where the main character spoke with text:

-Solid Snake in the original Metal Gear
-Ark in Terranigma
-Ryu Hayabusa even back on the NES games spoke
-I even recall Mega Man having some dialog in Mega Man 6

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

So it was not that companies HAD to make a silent protagonist to save space. They could have and just didn't for whatever their reasons were.

Half-Life is the only series of games I've seen to do the whole not talking thing well.

Crysis 2 seems like it could have benefitted a lot had Alcatraz actually spoken. Does it explain why he doesn't speak at any point in the game?

HEY, who says the protagonist doesn't talk, the computer talks all the time, and it's a "protagonist" like symbiotic thing-a-majig......machine!!

And what's up with all this emotional connection with video games v? I remeber playing super mario bros. on NES to BEAT it. Hell, I didn't know (or care ) why Mario was doing anything, didn't even know he was human.
When I'm playing a FPS, the only emotional connection I have is with the gun I'm using. "Out of AMMO?! NOOO!!!!!!!!" LOL.

someone needs to learn what "non linear" and "open world" mean.

First off, just because you can choose to go from point A to point B using different routes that does not make a game non linear...no, not evenif you throw in different means of transportation. A non linear game is something like Mass Effect, Far Cry 2, T.E.S. and whatnot where you have objective A B and C and you can tackle them in whatever order you want (note there is such things as non linear missions or quests within a linear game).

An open world also does not equal several very large action bubbles...Crysis was not open world. Fallout 3 is open world, Oblivion is an openworld, GTA4 is an openworld ...but not Crysis even tho the "bubbles" were admittedly very large


Furthermore....Crysis 2 is not a railroad shooter...for that matter neither is COD. House of the dead is a railroad shooter, get it straight. You want to tell me COD was heavily scripted? fine....you want to tell me that crysis 2 had smaller "bubbles" than crysis 1? fine...but calling them Railroad shooters is like calling Simcity an RTS

Some decades ago companies didn't sell millions of copies of their games and also space was very limited in times when we used floppies or even CD's, but there was no excellent audio and video compression software on the market.

You do realize that by "silent protagonist" we don't literally mean that they just don't have audio? We mean a character that doesn't talk via audio or text. There were games back in the day where the main character spoke with text:

-Solid Snake in the original Metal Gear
-Ark in Terranigma
-Ryu Hayabusa even back on the NES games spoke
-I even recall Mega Man having some dialog in Mega Man 6

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

So it was not that companies HAD to make a silent protagonist to save space. They could have and just didn't for whatever their reasons were.

Well most of the characters who spoke by text were in RPG games or games with lots of RPG elements, which is rather different from shooters. I mean can you name me an old 1st person shooter, where the protagonist had text or audio? I remember only one: the Duke (well he just had some comments, but they were all great)

Well most of the characters who spoke by text were in RPG games or games with lots of RPG elements, which is rather different from shooters. I mean can you name me an old 1st person shooter, where the protagonist had text or audio? I remember only one: the Duke (well he just had some comments, but they were all great)

1.) I didn't know you were talking only about FPS. I was just trying to prove that 100% silent characters in games in general did not exist because of space limitations or audio problems.
2.) A main character in FPS can talk with text too. In between chapters Duke Nukem had dialog text. And while it wouldn't be as effective and some gamers probably wouldn't even notice, you could put text on the screen during gameplay.
3.) I wouldn't consider Metal Gear, Mega Man, or Ninja Gaiden an RPG. Just saying.

someone needs to learn what "non linear" and "open world" mean.

First off, just because you can choose to go from point A to point B using different routes that does not make a game non linear...no, not evenif you throw in different means of transportation. A non linear game is something like Mass Effect, Far Cry 2, T.E.S. and whatnot where you have objective A B and C and you can tackle them in whatever order you want (note there is such things as non linear missions or quests within a linear game).

An open world also does not equal several very large action bubbles...Crysis was not open world. Fallout 3 is open world, Oblivion is an openworld, GTA4 is an openworld ...but not Crysis even tho the "bubbles" were admittedly very large


Furthermore....Crysis 2 is not a railroad shooter...for that matter neither is COD. House of the dead is a railroad shooter, get it straight. You want to tell me COD was heavily scripted? fine....you want to tell me that crysis 2 had smaller "bubbles" than crysis 1? fine...but calling them Railroad shooters is like calling Simcity an RTS

I'm glad I am not the only person on this thread that realizes this.

Doesn't take a lot of thinking to know that going behind the enemy is flanking and going past them is stealth.
Plus the Crysis 2 has nanosuit 2.0 or whatever you wanna call it, so naturally it would give more assistance to the user.

someone needs to learn what "non linear" and "open world" mean.

First off, just because you can choose to go from point A to point B using different routes that does not make a game non linear...no, not evenif you throw in different means of transportation. A non linear game is something like Mass Effect, Far Cry 2, T.E.S. and whatnot where you have objective A B and C and you can tackle them in whatever order you want (note there is such things as non linear missions or quests within a linear game).

An open world also does not equal several very large action bubbles...Crysis was not open world. Fallout 3 is open world, Oblivion is an openworld, GTA4 is an openworld ...but not Crysis even tho the "bubbles" were admittedly very large


Furthermore....Crysis 2 is not a railroad shooter...for that matter neither is COD. House of the dead is a railroad shooter, get it straight. You want to tell me COD was heavily scripted? fine....you want to tell me that crysis 2 had smaller "bubbles" than crysis 1? fine...but calling them Railroad shooters is like calling Simcity an RTS

There is no dictionary definition for "non-linear" as it applies to gaming. As such, there is no hard and fast definition. If you take the word literally from it's etymology, "non-linear" means simply that you don't have to follow a straight line to get from Point A to Point B. It doesn't mean "You can do Quest A, B, or C in whichever order you please." That's your own personal definition, and while it's not a bad one, it's not an official one either.

The same is true of the phrase "open-world." The Elder Scrolls and GTA IV are both often branded as open-world games, but in TES you can choose any quest out of hundreds to embark upon immediately after character creation. In GTA IV, the quests follow a progression; if you can do Quest A, B, or C in any order you please, you can't do Quest D, E, or F until the first 3 quests have been completed. So to call both games "open-world" is a bit of a misnomer. The fact is, there are varying degrees of open-world, just as there are varying degrees of linearity in a game. The safest way to define these terms is to look at them in their simplest forms, and in doing so, it's clear that Crysis is most definitely a non-linear game, however not an open-world game (but nobody ever said it was open-world, did they?).

Well most of the characters who spoke by text were in RPG games or games with lots of RPG elements, which is rather different from shooters. I mean can you name me an old 1st person shooter, where the protagonist had text or audio? I remember only one: the Duke (well he just had some comments, but they were all great)

1.) I didn't know you were talking only about FPS. I was just trying to prove that 100% silent characters in games in general did not exist because of space limitations or audio problems.
2.) A main character in FPS can talk with text too. In between chapters Duke Nukem had dialog text. And while it wouldn't be as effective and some gamers probably wouldn't even notice, you could put text on the screen during gameplay.
3.) I wouldn't consider Metal Gear, Mega Man, or Ninja Gaiden an RPG. Just saying.

1.) Well sorry for not mentioning this, but I thought this was kinda clear. I mean a RPG won't work without text or audio, while a racing or sports game normally doesn't need this.
2.) As I already wrote, Duke Nukem is the only old FPS that I remember, which had text/audio.
3.) I just know Mega Man from these games and yeah it is not a RPG. But meh, dunno how to say... I mean Mega Man... cool games, but always the same story and gameplay. I was very young when these games came out and I didn't care about story, identification and stuff. I was just playing to enjoy games.

Finally yeah, maybe I wasn't right that this was no reason of space that old games had no text/audio, but my main point was that this can enrich games and I don't understand why its used so rarely. It is hard for me to enjoy a game that only looks good and has nothing else to offer. I could talk hours about different situations and my feelings when playing Dead Space 2 or The Witcher, while I wouldn't spend even one word about Crysis2 or Bad Company2. It was just another (good) game, where I saved the world.

audiotapes could have been used to add some major depth to the story. plus they are optional, so the people that don't care about the story can just not listen to them.

FS, Ask a developer what a linear game is. He or she will tell you that it implies that its progression is not linear, meaning that you can go through determined events in the order you please (like Mass Effect or Far Cry 2) as opposed to having to go through event 1 2 and 3 in order to reach event 4....just because you can choose to take a boat or a car rather than walking from event 1 to 2 that does not make the progression any less linear. As far as I know Crysis' progression (regardless of transportation) was linear. Now whether the events themselves (like the missions) involved non linear completion within themselves that is another matter. By your definition GOW is a non linear game because you can pick different routes in certain levels...and that is most definitely a misconception.

Open world refers to the world you are playing in. As in a world that you can explore in its entirety in the way you desire as opposed to being confined into strictly gaming areas, Fast Travels and whatnot (which makes Mass Effect a non open world game...it has nothing to do with the way you start quests or missions. Note also that there is a difference between a linear chain of quests in within the main quest of a non linear game and the game actually being linear. TES is a non linear game due to the myriad of quests you can start and do at any time BUT the main quest in itself is pretty linear.

Yes there are people saying Crysis was an open world game

I am having hard time going through the campaign. The corridor gameplay and the dumb ass A.I just breaks it.

Urban warfare? Yeah, just like you see it in the army, or even TV, you have soldiers spread out randomly across the street. Shooting starts, those moving target-boards start vaulting back and forth some useless obstacles or run zig zag, shouting something once a while to make it look like they had some team A.I going on. Yeah, right. Hide behind a corner and hear the grenade go off as the rest of the enemies take themselves out. Did they really have to strip the whole **** A.I to get this to fit consoles, seriously? I can forgive the aliens not having brains, though I hear squids are very intelligent IRL.

1.) Well sorry for not mentioning this, but I thought this was kinda clear. I mean a RPG won't work without text or audio, while a racing or sports game normally doesn't need this.

I have played RPGs that had silent protagonists and they have worked. Chrono Trigger being my favorite one.

FS, Ask a developer what a linear game is. He or she will tell you that it implies that its progression is not linear, meaning that you can go through determined events in the order you please (like Mass Effect or Far Cry 2) as opposed to having to go through event 1 2 and 3 in order to reach event 4....just because you can choose to take a boat or a car rather than walking from event 1 to 2 that does not make the progression any less linear. As far as I know Crysis' progression (regardless of transportation) was linear. Now whether the events themselves (like the missions) involved non linear completion within themselves that is another matter. By your definition GOW is a non linear game because you can pick different routes in certain levels...and that is most definitely a misconception.

Open world refers to the world you are playing in. As in a world that you can explore in its entirety in the way you desire as opposed to being confined into strictly gaming areas, Fast Travels and whatnot (which makes Mass Effect a non open world game...it has nothing to do with the way you start quests or missions. Note also that there is a difference between a linear chain of quests in within the main quest of a non linear game and the game actually being linear. TES is a non linear game due to the myriad of quests you can start and do at any time BUT the main quest in itself is pretty linear.

Yes there are people saying Crysis was an open world game

Linearity doesn't strictly refer to plot progression. It also refers to level design. Crysis and Warhead are both non-linear in the latter sense.

But mainly my point is that there are levels of linearity and open-world-ness in game design, such that to say that a game is either linear or non-linear, or open-world or not open-world, is an oversimplification.

1.) Well sorry for not mentioning this, but I thought this was kinda clear. I mean a RPG won't work without text or audio, while a racing or sports game normally doesn't need this.

I have played RPGs that had silent protagonists and they have worked. Chrono Trigger being my favorite one.

All other characters "talk" in Chrono Trigger and you don't even need Chrono later in your group :> So in my opionion there are several protagonists in this game, although you start as Chrono.

In RPGs you can interact with other NPCs which means the protagonist isn't silent at all, or why do you think they talk to you when standing near them and pressing a button?

lets not forget at the end of the game alkatsaz becomes prophet

i like to think of it as alkatraz is just a vessel, in the deadman walking lvl the suits voice changes to prophets

Half-Life is the only series of games I've seen to do the whole not talking thing well.

Crysis 2 seems like it could have benefitted a lot had Alcatraz actually spoken. Does it explain why he doesn't speak at any point in the game?

zelda.

[Alcatraz's ruptured lungs served to advance the whole plot thread of the suit's symbiosis and the whole post-human warrior ideal that Hargreave was aiming for with the suit.[/quote]

this, i think some ppl are missing the whole transhuman part of the storyline

having him silent does make alot of sense

[Alcatraz's ruptured lungs served to advance the whole plot thread of the suit's symbiosis and the whole post-human warrior ideal that Hargreave was aiming for with the suit.

this, i think some ppl are missing the whole transhuman part of the storyline

having him silent does make alot of sense

It's obvious that Alcatraz's broken body is being subsumed by the Nano-suit throughout the story of Crysis2, but the bit about the ruptured lungs is way too obscure to be considered a logical explanation of why our protagonist doesn't have a voice. Remember, this information comes to the player by a tertiary character who appears for all of 2 minutes on-screen, and it (the information) is ticked off during a litany of other wounds and bodily afflictions that Alcatraz has sustained, given no special importance by either the doctor or Gould. To state that the ruptured lungs is the big reveal that is supposed to introduce the audience to the suit- symbiosis theme doesn't hold up. That information comes to the player through Hargreave, not through a fleeting reference to punctured lungs.

Also, consider the fact that Alcatraz is still able to grunt, gasp, and moan when he's getting the sh!t kicked out of him. If he's able to emit sounds, then he's able to emit words - perhaps not to sustain a conversation, but at least the 3 simple words that everybody was probably waiting to hear during the first 2 hours of gameplay - I'm. Not. Prophet. !

[Alcatraz's ruptured lungs served to advance the whole plot thread of the suit's symbiosis and the whole post-human warrior ideal that Hargreave was aiming for with the suit.

this, i think some ppl are missing the whole transhuman part of the storyline

having him silent does make alot of sense

It's obvious that Alcatraz's broken body is being subsumed by the Nano-suit throughout the story of Crysis2, but the bit about the ruptured lungs is way too obscure to be considered a logical explanation of why our protagonist doesn't have a voice. Remember, this information comes to the player by a tertiary character who appears for all of 2 minutes on-screen, and it (the information) is ticked off during a litany of other wounds and bodily afflictions that Alcatraz has sustained, given no special importance by either the doctor or Gould. To state that the ruptured lungs is the big reveal that is supposed to introduce the audience to the suit- symbiosis theme doesn't hold up. That information comes to the player through Hargreave, not through a fleeting reference to punctured lungs.

Also, consider the fact that Alcatraz is still able to grunt, gasp, and moan when he's getting the sh!t kicked out of him. If he's able to emit sounds, then he's able to emit words - perhaps not to sustain a conversation, but at least the 3 simple words that everybody was probably waiting to hear during the first 2 hours of gameplay - I'm. Not. Prophet. !

Maybe he doesn't feel like talking.

single player svcked.

alcatraz not talking in the game doesnt work, and doesnt fit in with this game. him having ruptured lungs isnt really an excuse because his lungs being ruptured served zero purpose in the game and could have easily taken that out with no affect on the game.

alien AI is just as terrible as CELL ai.

corridor much? Gotta love the 'waves' of enemies gameplay. kill the 3 dudes, ceph dropship drops in a few more. rinse/repeat. Gotta keep the enemy count low to accommodate the consoles guys! People think that these so much sandbox in crysis 2 but they are just too blind to notice is a corridor shooter with little choice.

i can go on forever. but its not worth it. if you think the game was good your obviously a dumbass who likes mediocre games anyways, and theres no hope for you.

And it's obvious that you are too blinded by fanboy-ism to see that Crysis 1 was a very linear affair. It just had bigger corridors than Crysis 2. There are no more or less tactical options and choice for each situation in Crysis 2 as there were for each situation in Crysis 1.

Crysis is not "very linear." The difference between Crysis and Crysis2 is that Crysis2's visor tells the player every single possible approach to every single encounter in the game. In Crysis, you had to actually think for yourself. That's probably what tripped you up.

So you didn't manage to work out that you could ignore the call to check tactical options, like some of us did. It didn't take a genius to figure that using the visor was likely to make replays a little less interesting, so I avoided it as much a possible. That would probably also explain why it took me some 14 hours for my first play through.

As for Crysis and it's linearty, how damned tight did it get in the mountain, or on the Aircraft carrier.. a lot more than C2. Yes Crysis had some large areas, but it more than made up for it in the tight sections. C2 may not have vast areas to play in, but it's never seems as tight as some of the original, and I can't think of too many times where I haven't managed to come up with different strategies for the three play throughs I've done so far, so some of us aren't having too much trouble finding replay value.

Unlike Nomad, the protagonist from Crysis, he does not speak in-game (partly due to damaged vocal cords) (although it can be speculated that it is him talking during the Crysis 2 - Be the weapon trailer) <<<<<

Credits: Crysis wikia