Was Crysis 2 really that bad?

Crysis is probably one of my favorite FPS's of all time. I loved the semi-open level design, the AI, the nanosuit, and the variety of ways to go about approaching missions. Just a really great open-ended structure not is not diluted in the way that most open-world games these days are.

Crysis 2 completely reversed that by adding in more linear levels, a story, taking you out of the jungle and into the city, and so forth. While I don't hate Crysis 2, I definitely consider it a downgrade. I think they reduced it down to appeal to more people; Crytek had "hit it big" so to speak, and their head got a little big for their shoulders a little too fast. So while Crysis was more of a shooter-sim game, Crysis 2 was more of a shooter-arcade game, if that makes any sense. I did like the story, though, about how the suit sort of absorbed Prophet and then this anonymous marine put the suit on and over time Prophet and suit sort of took him over...kind of a morally grey area, I mean, who is Prophet to do that? But you gotta do what you gotta do.

Crysis 3 was a huge improvement over Crysis 2, though, but not as good as Crysis 1.

Not that I share that opinion [any more] of Crysis 2 being "consolized" and therefore of lower quality to cater to the lowest-common denominator, but I would like to see 10 console gamers and 10 PC gamers play Crysis 1 and compare their play styles; I wonder if one group would just turn on armor mode and blast through the game, or if one group would actually take full advantage of the suit, terrain, weapon and equipment variety, and so forth. Or maybe they would be a mixed bag. Probably the latter.

With that said, I don't think when PC gamers complain about a game being of reduced quality for consoles they are inherently talking about the technical features, I think they are talking about the more intangible aspects such as gameplay, how the game feels in their hands, etc.. There were some definite reductions in quality in those respects in Crysis 2.

So the question is: how well did Crysis 1 sell on console? Maybe not well? Maybe that is why they changed the formula for Crysis 2.

And don't get me wrong, you're always going to have some twerps complaining about the visuals because that's just what they do. But whatever, any time you bring up Crysis and visuals it just gets reduced to "tech demo".

Uh, I think Crysis 2 came first before Crysis was released for consoles. ;)

Looks like garbage at up to 30

This was just another PC first franchise that turned to shit in order to pander to consoles.

They got what they deserved in the end.

In Far Cry 4, once I'm in the main village, I can explore half the game world before going from point A to point B, getting my weaponry and equipment states upgraded enough so that I'm not a sitting duck.

Perhaps, all you played was the very beginning (tutorial level) where you learned the keystrokes and mouse controls for playing the game. That's where you walked from point A to point B.

The dumb cutscenes were a genuine gripe of mine as well. But, I have the luxury of immersing myself in the whole game world (Reset Outpost mode). So, no need to go through the SP campaign again.

The Crysis 2 world consists of urban settings. So, it cannot really be compared to the foliage-rich Crysis and Warhead. But, if we compare urban graphics from Crysis 2 and Crysis, I think Crysis 2 is more consistent. Crysis had some really yucky settings at the early levels.

Crysis 2 wasn't bad. I would say I enjoyed it. But didn't like the linear aspect of it. With respect to the graphics it was one of the best looking games from 2011 but certainly no where near the bar that the original Crysis 1 raised. Crysis 2 Certainly it wasn't as good as Crysis 1 or Crysis Warhead. I played Crysis 3 this year now that game was mediocre. No variety in the levels, stuck inside a dome with bland urban grassy environment. At least Crysis 2 had some variety in the levels.

Fixed. :)

I can sadly say I have never been so disappointed in a sequel ever. Crysis 1 got me back into pc gaming and i was so excited to play 2. I barely recognized it as the same series. Stop playing about 5 hrs in out of boredom and anger.

lol did it? Fair enough

Crysis 3 was so terrible that its only game in series that i never beat. it doesnot make any sense in crysis 3 where you play as prophet. didnot he died in crysis 2?

further more they open the level but its more bland. Crysis 3 is not only mediocre but its most forgattable experience ever. i barely remember what i played in crysis 3.

it makes crysis 2 feel like masterpiece.

Not a bad game at all. It just wasn't the generational leap that Crysis was. Crysis 3 was what Crysis 2 should have been, but for many unfortunate reasons didn't do well. Still might be the best game graphically however. God damn, is it still stunning in game. No smoke and mirrors, just incredible detail and lighting.

Crysis 2 was the crowning achievement technologically on console. No game had its physics, graphics, and scale in one package. As a PC gamer I was actually impressed.

Yes.

IMHO, I would say that Crysis 2 is a technical marvel for its time.

Sure, you can argue that it was dumbed down for consoles, but if you've an entry level GPU that's only just above the quality of Intel integrated graphics, you can see that they've been doing favours for PC too. (At the time, I had a "gaming" laptop running on a Mobility Radeon 5650, and it managed to hover around the high 30s to low 40s.

I think what we're missing from Crysis 1 is a PC version of the CryEngine 3 version seen on the PS3/360. The fact that PC Gamer Magazine listed a 2007 game as one of 2016's most hardware intense titles is worrying.

I beat all four. Quite honestly, I thought Crysis 3 was better than Crysis 2. It's Crysis, Crysis 3, Warhead, and Crysis 2 in my order of preference.

I certainly liked the grassy areas and the use of Ceph weaponry.

It would have been nice to see a PC version of Crysis using CryEngine 3 (not the barren console version).

As I recall, Crysis 3 had the shipyard/port, the grassy areas, the sewers, the night at the swamp, the flooded ruins of NYC, the Ceph tunnels, plus the rail sequence from the air. Crysis 2 had even less variety.

The performance was god awful on 360 and absolutely abysmal on PS3. If they had gone full open world the frame rate would have averaged the single digits. CD Projek Red openly admitted they dialed back the graphics of The Witcher 3 to make it run properly on console. You think a fully open world shooter with even better graphics than the original Crysis would have run properly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwD2ty2UfBM&t=16s

Here, during firefights the frame rate drops to the mid 10's lol. On both platforms.

Crysis 1 run like sh*t on the vast majority of PCs when it came out. Thats still didnt stopped PC gamers from playing it at low performance. As I've proved I played Crysis 1 on PS3 on its highest difficulty. Probably some stutter here and there but never had any major problem with it. It played fine for the most part. My 2014 laptop still has problems runnning it cause the game was badly optimized, even on PC

Lol, you were probably almost finished with the game by then. I think I beat Crysis 2 in like 8 hours. It was short as hell, and easy, too. Whereas Crysis I think I put in at least 15 hours or more just on the first playthrough; not counting subsequent playthroughs, which I did a few times.

@Vatusus: At least PC’s had the option of playing it by adjusting the settings to their liking.

Maybe your standards were lower back then but the PS3 version is awful. Frequently dips into the teens and it’s impossible to remain at or above 20fps during firefights. Ain’t exactly my idea of playable.

So, you saw a few framerate dips on a yt video and assume all firefights were like that...

k, move along

@Vatusus: Unless you were counting frame rates while playing this video is far more revelant than your comment. Move along.

Also lol @few frame rate dips are you fucking shitting me? The game is averaging in the low 20’s on PS3.

Ya do know the game was patched after its release. I didnt played the game right when it came out so there's that

Anyway, think what you like. I played both PC and PS3 versions. Performance aside (like every other console/PC multiplat game), they were the exact same game

Why did you @ me ? x)

Well that's a pretty awesome coincidence.

@Juub1990: Ahahaha :p

?

what are you talking about?

I thought it was pretty decent. If I remember correctly, the first half or maybe three quarters was the best part and then it kind of trailed off somewhat.

I think it was even a touch better than the original crysis which imo was overrated.

I don't think console gamers would have missed much with the Ascension level missing. It's by far the worst level in Crysis. What's the point of flying around when the VTOL was hemmed in at both sides? It might as well be on rails. I love flight sims. But, Ascension in Crysis really, really sucked. ;)

The open-ended gameplay of the early Crysis levels were also on consoles even if the terrain was a little barren.

Yup, basically this

i actually enjoyed it, then again it was my first crysis game. then i played part 2, which was good in itself and recently completed part 3 this years. each game felt different, each game had its flaw and each game had its own experiences. i cant rate any of em, since i don't want to disrespect the games. i do have to say crysis 3 was an appetizer and not a main meal.

How about you prove the console version doesn't run like dog shit lol? The 360 version is at least somewhat playable. The PS3 version is complete garbage.

I forgot though, I'm talking to someone who doesn't even know the fundamentals of debating and whose entire argument boils down to "lol I played it and it was fine", despite being presented video evidence that proves the performance is extremely subpar. Doesn't matter you thought it was fine. If numbers and not bias come into play, it isn't fine unless you have very low standards. It runs like crap on consoles. Even more so on PS3. Prove otherwise. Unless you were running a benchmark while playing, it's irrelevant.

Sorry, I'm not doing this "back and forth" sh*t with you again. I've proven I played both. Can you? Oh, right, you presented a youtube video made before the patch so that makes your argument valid in your mind. And since I already know how much you'll keep grinding at it despite being constantly wrong I'm not even bothering. Think what you like. I just need to know I didnt had any major problem with the game on PS3. I dont need you or any expired youtube video to convince me otherwise

@Vatusus: And I googled Crysis performance patch and found nothing. Are or you just assuming every patch enhances performance? I don’t care that you played it or that you had no problem. Post a benchmark of the game running on your PS3 or GTFO. Quit stonewalling and learn how to debate.

no people act like crysis was his amazing gem but other then graphics the gameplay was pretty bland and I hated how the A.I always just knew where you were does'nt matter if you used clock and 50 feet away. I liked crysis warhead better then the original one though it had more alien levels. Crysis was decent I just could'nt play it on consoles because it was visually a downgrade

Not on the Crysis I played. When cloaked, a KPA might detect there's something present after a long gaze at the spot where Nomad was at right next to him. But, more often than not, the KPA went past Nomad if the latter remained perfectly still, especially with additional concealment such as shadows and bushes.

The foliage played a big part in concealment. The lack of it (eg console versions) can certainly affect gameplay.

Right, but the big problem was, in Crysis, you could use all of the foliage as cover. Playing on delta mode and sneaking through the grass and bushes was awesome. Something you couldn't do on consoles since 75% of the foliage was missing.

Brilliant post man. A resounding YES to all points!

They all took place inside the Dome. Crysis 2 took places at different locations in NYC. They had indoor environments, the beginning was inside a submarine, then you go inside the Alien Ceph organism, also, there was the level where you had all these nanosuits (which was a really nice looking level), also the Ceph boss you had to fight inside Union Station in NYC. Crysis 3 for example has a location for Chinatown, it was still the same grassy environment inside a Dome. The night swamp was still inside the Dome. There was the dam level where you had to blow out the dam, if you include that as a "variety" but it was meh to me. No where near as Crysis 1. There was one towards the end where you go up the the space station and that was for a very brief period of time. Crysis 1 had all that and more.

Personally, I think Crytek barked up the wrong tree by putting the idea that CELL had enacted a Dome over New York City. They could have taken a different path with the story line where you had to go to different places, an Island or even a different city. Being inside a dome severely limited the diversity of their environments, all I saw mostly was a grass and decrepit environments.

@Xtasy26: what is with you and bringing up old shit?

@Xtasy26: do not bump old threads