» Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:38 pm
Meh, it's nothing special.... I honestly don't find it looking much better the Halflife 2 when that came out. It feels clunky, fuzzy, innacurate, there's some bizarre lightning effects. I got a high end gaming rig that runs pretty much everything on max settings, however Crysis 2 is giving me the infamous xfire/SLI flickering bug so maybe once they patch that, there will be some graphical improvements.
The gameplay itself is extremely linear, and there little to no destructible environment. Aiming and getting hit seems to be off the mark too, and the AI doesnt seem too intelligent (they just stand there and shoot at you - I saw little to no flanking or hiding behind cover)
Textures such as a cash register on a desk or a PC are very poorly drawn, and are infact what reminded me of Halflife 2's textures.
The point I'm trying to make is, the game itself isn't terrible, it'd be ok if it was a standalone title.
But the hype that surrounded it due to the roaring success and innovation from it's predecessor, I expected the "next big thing" from Crytek. It's certainly not the new boundary-setter what I expected after the thrills of Crysis 1 and Crysis: Warhead, and I can't see this game ever being used as a benchmark.
And it really does feel like a console port, I'm not seeing that sharpness in the graphics, that "something" that defines a high-end game that uses high-end hardware.
I'm not a console hater, but this is not a PC game, and it certainly is not worth it's name.