[360, PS3] Crysis 2
- Thread starter ultragpu
- Start date
Yes! I'm glad someone finally mentioned this. I by and large hate how cutscenes are handled in most other shooters, C2 does it right, looks similar to game graphics, doesn't cut into the action and keeps you immersed. Perfect!
Anyone that has played C1 extensively will be to a point dissapointed in C2. C2 is a changed game that isn't anywhere near as open as C1. People (myself included) need to purge C1 from their memories because that just can't be done on these old consoles with the graphics spec Crytek wanted, so take C2 on it's own compared to other current console shooters. In that regard I think it's far better than other shooters in the openness regard.
Its still not perfect, having a mute protagonist is baaaad.
Atleast Nomad in Crysis used to speak when required.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
If you had the armor ability that allows you to see "tracers" in the air for all shots fired at you, it'll seem like they are shooting through walls/objects but they aren't. They're shooting in your direction, bullets are being stopped by the barrier, but the tracer still shows the path of the bullet to allow you to determine the origin of who is shooting at you.
That said, there are a few barriers that should block sight and bullets, but don't. Some of the destructable wooden walls for example appear to not block enemy sight. As do some free standing metal walls. It's generally fairly rare and mostly in the first half of the game.
Also if you you neck punch an enemy while he is rappelling down a rope, his body will float back up to the top of the rope, then fall back down
Now this I have to try.
Also, I've only found 2 or 3 levels with truly infinite spawns. Some of the others appear to have infinite spawns, but they don't. They just have a LOT of spawns, but you can eventually run out of them.
IMO, the idea was good, but the execution could have been done better. Presumably Cell has a lot of hired guns. They also have radios. So they "should" be able to call in backup. Which should take some time. One level had staggered infinite spawns, you would run out of spawns then it would take a minute or three for the spawns to start up again.
Anyway, that's the good idea. But the execution wasn't so good with enemies always entering from the same off screen map location (that above example) or with some of the limited extended spawns appearing out of thin air (as in your example).
One of the more well done examples was later in the game
where you are fighting a pinger and there infinite aliens that keep wandering into your battlefield area drawn by the sounds of combat. But they spawn off the battlefield and enter it by jumping over walls, barriers, whatever. Makes sense as you have an entire alien invasion trying to wipe out this last human bastion in NYC as you try to evacuate all the civilians.
And definitely do NOT read that spoiler if you don't want a later level of the game to be spoiled for you.
Anyways the infinite or extended spawns didn't much bother me as in all cases, except the spoilered one, you can at any time immediate ignore all spawns [stealth] and finish the level. Unlike something like COD where you HAVE to fight them until you reach the invisible point that turns them off.
Regards,
SB
It's a complicated issue - staying in first person can keep the level of immersion, make it feel somewhat interactive and I can see the good in these.
But cinematic tools like camera movement and editing can also have very strong emotional impact, or show the story in a more spectacular way. The reason you usually don't like it is that most studios don't have people with proper skills and experience and their camera work and editing are simply bad.
About the pinger boss fights
They weren't even a fight for me even on supersoldier difficulty, everytime I faced one I had some C4s handy.Didn't even took more than 10 seconds to finish the first two, took a bit longer for the 3rd one as it constantly keeps on pinging.
Billy Idol
Legend
Well I am very happy that C2 is not so much open world!! It is still a bit to much open world for me, so I am glad it is not like C1!!
Liking the game so far...wonder if the story pics a little bit up...
Liking the game so far...wonder if the story pics a little bit up...
I think games in general are headed in the wrong direction in how they tell their stories. They rely far too much on cutscenes, bragging about all they voice talent and motion capturing, showing it off at every opportunity. There is nothing inherently wrong with it of course, it's just used way too much. Games are interactive, they should try to remain that way while they tell their stories.
Crysis 2 did this well. I really like the part
It's a lot more involving then a cutscene would have been.
I they should have give the guy a voice though. Those awkward silences break the immersion. And have a better story. I'm sure what the guy who wrote it was bad mouthing other games stories for if this the best he can do.
Crysis 2 did this well. I really like the part
where you get arrested, being pushed out the door at gun point.
I they should have give the guy a voice though. Those awkward silences break the immersion. And have a better story. I'm sure what the guy who wrote it was bad mouthing other games stories for if this the best he can do.
I wish more games would use better voice actors and have mocap! As for games staying interactive, I think Laa-Yosh brought up a good point. It just all depends on what kind of game it is or how they're going about it.
I thought it was pretty good as well. Problem with some of the cutscenes is that they'll randomly throw in button prompts at the last moment when at first they take away control (or it appears it's just a scene playing out).
I agree.
I thought having Alcatraz silent hurt the story somewhat. A lot of the game just felt like going from point A to B because some random person told me so.
Still I thought the story was far from bad just very thin in places. I suppose that's not all his, the writers, fault though, considering Crytek had the basic premise set in place before he came aboard.
It's interesting that while neither this Alcatraz guy nor Gordon Freeman speaks at all, you still pretty much accept Freeman as a character. Maybe it's because they've shown his face and his locker, and a real name is more personal than a callsign or whatever...
djskribbles
Legend
I don't know exactly what happens at the end, but to me, it seems like Alcatraz is just the body in the suit. Prophet's DNA is embedded in the suit and sort of takes over, maybe because Alcatraz was a dying man. When they put Alcatraz in that deep layer suit scanner thing, it showed that he was badly wounded and the suit's cells or whatever were healing into his wounds. At the end, he speaks, but he calls himself "Prophet". That's why I think Crytek didn't show or make Alcatraz speak, because he's just a temporary character so to speak and just the body in the suit.
Last edited by a moderator:
Loved these parts.
That bridge collapsing scene floored me, not just because of the destruction that was going on, but by how smooth it all ran.
Its still not perfect, having a mute protagonist is baaaad.
Atleast Nomad in Crysis used to speak when required.
With games that stick in the first person view, I prefer the character to remain quiet. There's something jarring to me when a character speaks while I'm in his view and pulls me out of the game.
I think that's the reason most shooters only have characters talk while they pull the camera back. When playing the game, players tend to have their own thoughts and reactions to the events taking place before them, some random voice talking over (or conflicting maybe) their own thoughts and reactions may pull some people from the game. Just my opinion.
We all know the suit is symbiotic, so I thought it was likely that the suit holds the characteristics/traits of it's former host and eventually Prophet, the suit, and Alcatraz merge into the solder we see in the end.
I agree with this. Taking that even further I d also want something like what we saw in the infamous killzone trailer. When I play FPS I dont want to see other characters behaving like actors in the game environment in third person during cut scenes. I dont want to take control of said character only to progress to the next cut scene to see his own story unfold. It is me (us) that I want to be part of the story.
I want characters in the environment to speak to me, not Sev, or Marcus or Gordon.
I want to watch the plot unfold through my own eyes in first person view and have some freedom or some interaction. During the cut scenes its me that I want to be part of it. Not some fake personality hero.
This one of the reasons why (excluding the IQ and effects of the CGI) the trailer felt so immersive. The cut scene camera shifted to our eyes, we saw no other face or heard no other person's voice that represented a main character. We as spectators observed the scene and fellow soldiers and immediately a gun was placed to our (spectators') hands when "we" approached the warzone. Every virtual character interacted equally with other virtual characters and the spectator immediately conveying the mood. The spectator was "unimportant" and only a tiny part of a huge war zone
Also it avoided giving too much empowerment to the "main character". Usually games tend to present the main character you control as an awesome cool hero or soldier that everyone treats like someone special. But nothing beats being in first person for real in the game and feeling like yourself instead of someone else you arent. This trailer wouldnt have felt the same if we were supposed to see through the eyes of the bad ass chosen one hero
For reference here is the trailer again. Emphasis on how the scene progresses, unfolds and blends with the supposed (but fake) gameplay
About you simply being a grunt stuck in a fucked up situation,
Killzone 2 did manage to get some of that feel though (KZ3 didn't at all !)...most of the battles you fought fairly captured that feel. For eg. the Bridge level where you were just someone trying to help the convoy move.
Instead of relying on huge set piece events and 'unexpected' change in situation, narrow escapes etc etc. it relied on the raw tension of gunfight between you and your enemy.
Killzone 2 did manage to get some of that feel though (KZ3 didn't at all !)...most of the battles you fought fairly captured that feel. For eg. the Bridge level where you were just someone trying to help the convoy move.
Instead of relying on huge set piece events and 'unexpected' change in situation, narrow escapes etc etc. it relied on the raw tension of gunfight between you and your enemy.
Just installed the latest update and it now just locks up on a black screen whenever I try to resume my previous game. It's a total lock up too, I have to go over and physically switch my PS3 off and on again.
Never been the king for me!
By the way, spent a good couple of hours playing on my friend's PC and the game looks gorgeous and looks quite optimised. The animation is smooth -contrary to consoles...
However, the scale is not that impressive. Or, rather, you are given the impression of the magnitude of the scenery while being cleaverly constrained in terms of playable area...That, compared to the first installement, made me say : What?
I haven't seen anyone bring up Uncharted 2 yet. Maybe I missed it. j/k
As far as I can remember, Crysis 1 did almost exactly the same thing. Crysis Warhead even more so.However, the scale is not that impressive. Or, rather, you are given the impression of the magnitude of the scenery while being cleaverly constrained in terms of playable area...That, compared to the first installement, made me say : What?
So any comments that disagree with you would be pointless then? No one is trying to change anyone's mind here since we all have different opinions as we are expressing freely. I'm glad you have moved on.
Similar threads
