Anyone who is a regular to these forums will have undoubtedly noticed the insult that Crysis 2 has been accused of...it's just CoD with nanosuits. This is a cookie-cutter way of insulting any game, and the insult isn't even an insult in most cases; let me elaborate.

First off, taking mechanics from a game does not in any way mean it is a clone. What companies will do is often take certain mechanics from a game and implement it into their own to increase sales and likability. If you wanted to, you could say that all first-person shooters have copied Wolfenstein and Doom by making it a first-person shooter where you kill humans and aliens. Where would be if companies hadn't developed first-person shooters out of fear or being accused that they copied it. In general, the different platforms of gaming (platformers, sports games, fighting games, FPSs) are doing nothing but getting better, and that's because they'll take ideas from other games and implement it into their own. So the argument that Crysis 2, or anything for that matter, are CoD clones is not a sound one.

Also, the CoD games are not bad games. They sell because people generally trust in them to deliver a fun experience. When CoD Modern Warfare came along, it changed, no REVOLUTIONIZED FPSs. It introduced the loadout system and RPG like leveling and player modifications (perks), and added some variety to games. The downfall to Call of Duty is that it has become an annual release making them very repetitive.

But when developers take what is good and what people like from a series and implement the ideas into their own game, it makes for a better game (in general). Saying Crysis 2 is CoD with nanosuits is so ridiculous. You're right, aside from invisibility, power jumping and sliding, gorgeous visuals, armor mode, ledgegrabbing, nanovision (which isn't too much), visor mode, and having things linked to an overall energy bar...it is a lot like CoD. But all of the previously listed things add a lot more variety and make it a different game. You could argue that Halo 4 is CoD with Spartan Armor, but that addition makes it a completely different game.

If you are going to dislike Crysis 2 for anything, it shouldn't be that it is "CoD with nanosuits". You could talk about how unsupported it's community was, how the map packs were useless on console, how buggy the game was/is, how the killcam never functions properly, or other things gameplay wise...but you're contributing nothing by comparing it to CoD. A lot of people were upset because it was "dumbed down for consoles." I would like to make the argument that had Crysis 2 not been available for consoles we wouldn't see another big budget Crysis game. It is most likely because Crysis 2 was made available for consoles that Crysis 3 will be the game that it is. Sales figures show that Xbox sales accounted for 54%, PS3 taking 29%, and PC having 14%. People like Ruku and TS Andey are actually telling developers what they'd like to see in Crysis 3, while most are just too busy assaulting it with terrible accusations that make them feel good to be counter-culture.

And before you say it, I know this is a soap-box post, but, I'm tired of seeing the same thing over and over, as are you I'm sure.

They use "CoD" instead of "linear shooter".

Thanks for the mention, bruh

I should have good ideas about game mechanics or I'd be screwed. Soon majoring in Computer Science on my way to become a Game Mechanics Designer, and anolyzing games like I usually do around here or over at Crydev is great practice.

First things first: The thing with Call of Duty is that it's "cool", and with anything that is "cool and popular", it is also "cool and popular" to hate on it.

Secondly: There are perfectly legitimate things to hate about Call of Duty that haven't evolved at all for NO REASON, since they do not define what Call of Duty is. Some examples are:

-Weak gun sounds (compare to Counter Strike: Crysis 2 suffered from this ailment in some of its weapons too).

-Horribly dated engine that results in poor animations, horrible graphics, small levels and other design limitations.

-Locking away things for the hell of it on PC (no developer console, meager graphics options) and all platforms (no individual sound mix/volume in any Modern Warfare game: Treyarch games manage to get this right).

These things, among others, have no bearing on the "Call of Duty Identity" and do not get worked on due to Activision's moneygrubbing practices. Basically, the prime example of "Selling out".

Thirdly: There are perfectly legitimate reasons to criticize Crysis 2 and compare it to Call of Duty in a negative light. However, there are a couple different comparisons to be made:

-"Call of NanoSuit": This complaint stems not from taking "a page or two, inspiration" from Call of Duty's book but rather to OUTRIGHT try to STEAL Call of Duty's identity while at the same time REPLACING CRYSIS IDENTITY WITH IT. Crysis had its own established identity and Crysis 2 "sold it out" in exchange for a (largely failed) attempt at grabing a slice off the Call of Duty money pie.

-Selling out, general "lazy consoleport" complaints: These refer to, basically, the exact same Call of Duty complaints I detailed avobe: Lack of polish and development in areas that NEED it for the sole reason of saving some development bucks. The symptoms in Crysis 2 include muddy textures, jerky animations, vegetation that looks WORSE than its predecessor's, horrible storytelling, locked developer console, QTEs that tell you to press RMB for the left hand and LMB for the right hand...

In short, let me summarize all of the avobe with...

TL;DR: It isn't that Call of Duty is bad: It is that CRYSIS is CRYSIS and should be CRYSIS, and Crysis 2 tried way too hard to be Call of Duty. If I buy a banana and like it, and proceed to buy a second banana, I WILL be mad if I get an apple! And that doesn't mean apples are bad or that I dislike them.