[360, PS3] Crysis 2

I'm not going to extend the pseudo-debate about "the best looking game", but I salute Cryteck's efforts to deliver an excellent multi-engine (although lacking some optimization and a touch of polish). But is it too late in the game? It could've replaced the UE3 if offered sooner...no? :smile:
 
>_> There's a game in here somewhere. The joke's over guys... where is it?!?!
>_>
<_>
<_<
>_>
>_<



Lycan said:
I'm not going to extend the pseudo-debate about "the best looking game", but I salute Cryteck's efforts to deliver an excellent multi-engine (although lacking some optimization and a touch of polish). But is it too late in the game? It could've replaced the UE3 if offered sooner...no? :smile:
Click to expand...

Might be worth a new topic for discussion. :) "Is Crytek LTTP"
 
Nesh said:
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
Click to expand...

You must mean that you missed the following when you meant "fake gameplay":



And as a bonus for the old Killzone 1:



Finally there is this:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6304486/index.html?tag=result;title;0

I will quote only this though but its very informative:

GameSpot: For the original Killzone, you had to deal with the "Halo killer" moniker. For Killzone 2, you had the target render video from E3. It seems like Killzone 3 was the first time there wasn't any manufactured pressure from the outside. The team was able to focus on its own goals.

Hermen Hulst: Going back to a few things you're saying, the Halo comparisons were a press thing. I met the journalist who came up with that recently, and he apologized. It was a blessing and a curse in a way [that we were being compared] to a well-established game. That was an honor to us in a way, and it really raised the exposure to the franchise. It was also kind of awkward because they're such different games. We never really thought of them as a benchmark or even as a reference--even though, of course, [Halo] is an FPS.

It's a very different story for the second target you bring up. The studio [created that target render] as a benchmark. We created that as a concept trailer to capture the core experience of the game. It wasn't just a graphical benchmark--it was the intensity and the visceral gameplay style. All of that was captured. Then it was exposed to the outside world when we weren't ready. But that had little to do with it, so the pressure was a secondary thing to that trailer.

The pressure for Killzone 3 was self-imposed in that we didn't want our fans to wait for another four to four and a half years. We've suffered from that in the sense that after four and a half years, your game might be forgotten about. There are very few people that still play multiplayer on the servers. Now, I think we can bring a game to a loyal and still very active user base. We still have mindshare with a lot of the people playing Killzone 2. That's been great. That's one thing we wanted to do. For a lot of teams, I guess it's normal to have a two-year cycle, but for us, it was new and that was the big pressure with Killzone 3.
Click to expand...

Personally I like a bit of both first person cut scenes and looking at it from a cinematic perspective, this should have been done in Crysis 2 to give us more on the graphics engine. However comparisons of Crysis 2 to Killzone 2, Killzone or even Killzone 3 are missguided and disingenuous.

They also don't really make too much sense because Crysis 2 is a "single player screen" 3d engine that is designed to be a multiplatform marketing tool to market the CryEngine3 in competition to the UnrealEngine3, and the upcoming IdTech5 from Id Software. While 3d engines for Halo series are "four-player splitscreen 3d engine" and other famous games like CoD are limited to "2 player splitscreen 3d engine" yet Crysis 2 has not gotten any flack for NOT having a coop mode or even an online coop mode.

Killzone 2 however did get critisized for not having a coop mode yet it still got critisized for HAVING a coop mode in Killzone 3, its sad because game reviewers, even when they are informed directly by the game devs will turn around and make ridiculous comments and devalue a feature in the game.

For the most part its the gaming media websites and magazines that invent alot of the hype and fluff, specially when it came to that 2005 Killzone target render and unfortunately alot of gamers are still being missinformed by people seeking to devalue or destroy the credibility of a game series like Killzone.

Anyways I purchased the Crysis Maximum edition for Crysis 1 and Warhead and Wars PC to play on my PC with Athlon 6400+ X2, 2GB ram and a nvidia GeForce GTS 250 1GB aka G92b 55nm all stock clock speeds under Vista SP2 for testing and completion and because I don't currently have internet I am unable to play Warhead to authenticate the game online and play, that really sucks that piracy on PC has ruined PC gaming for the most part but despite my specs and Very High setting to complete Crysis 1 three times on hard difficulty, I was conflicted with Crysis 2 because even in Crysis 1 with all of the extra memory there was alot of crap textures and bugs and glitches that are not because of slow hardware but because of the game code itself.

The enemy A.I. despite all of the hype was not anywhere as sophisticated as the Halo 2-3-Reach AI and the Killzone 2-3 AI. Despite that the game is fun but you run out of things to kill quickly and yet they managed to address that with Crysis 2 having more "calls for backup" aka spawning. and the friendly A.I. was a huge limited disappointed that in Crysis 2, I don't think its gotten any better.

Overall Crysis 1 really felt like a huge corridor with multiple checkpoints to trigger cutscenes and sub missions and despite the graphics being DirectX 10 the game lacked alot of sophistication with 3d effect elements like smoke, dust and clouds that just look much better on console games erm like Killzone..., Crysis 2 steps things up but I just wish it would have been more.

I played Crysis 2 on my friends PS3 on a 1080p 46 inch HDTV he bought last December, I am still not sure if I am going to get the PC version or the console version but I am leaning to the console because of simplicity in starting and playing the game over beauty which I feel is an unfortunate side effect of both Microsoft and Sony (but mainly Microsoft) in rushing the console generation due to competitive reasons instead of waiting until a more appropriate time and engineering process that I realize they were not clairvoyant to know it would have been 2008 and based these consoles on Radeon 3870 or 4870 and GeForce GTS 250 or maybe GT200 (if it was 40nm to lower power and heat) but this is the generation we have to deal with and ten whole years of Direct X 9.

Sad too because now that Crysis 2 has been affected this way it also means that its possible that IdTech5 will not be based on OpenGL 3.3 and just be a Open GL 2.1 based 3d engine until the next console generation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Boized77 said:
Funny how quickly opinion changes. When the game first game out it was heralded as the highly acclaimed technical landmark FPS on a console.
Click to expand...

Still top notch just not untouchable. It's harder to dismiss the competition because features aren't actually in the flagship game for the engine. Pretty rough release all things considered I suppose.
 
Shadowing (from any object) are only enabled for certain lights on the console versions. This includes self-shadows, etc. Sunlight always has shadow casting.

On another note, how can games like Halo Reach, Oblivion, and Mass Effect have shadow casting for every light? Is it something to do with baked lighting?
 
Those games are using different type of shadows - only chracters and certain objects cast them, rest is baked on textures. And for ME at least, most of those light sources are not real lights at all :)

An yeah, the biggest difference between PC settings is number of shadow casting lights, I really don't know why anyone is suprised that it's comparable to high (or worse) settngs in 360/PS3 version :)
 
Akumajou said:
The enemy A.I. despite all of the hype was not anywhere as sophisticated as the Halo 2-3-Reach AI and the Killzone 2-3 AI. Despite that the game is fun but you run out of things to kill quickly and yet they managed to address that with Crysis 2 having more "calls for backup" aka spawning. and the friendly A.I. was a huge limited disappointed that in Crysis 2, I don't think its gotten any better.
Click to expand...

Enemy AI in Halo 2 is better than Crysis? What enemy AI? There's no way at all the two can be compared, the size and complexity of the environments in Crysis make the requirements on the games AI orders of magnitude more complex than Halo 2's. I haven't played the other games but from what I've seen, none of them even begin to approach the size and complexity of the levels in Crysis.

Overall Crysis 1 really felt like a huge corridor with multiple checkpoints to trigger cutscenes and sub missions
Click to expand...

That certainly has an element of truth but the corridors where certainly far, far larger than any of the shooters you've mentiond so far. In fact the only shooters I can think of that go a step further than Crysis in "openess" are Farcry 2 and Stalker.

and despite the graphics being DirectX 10 the game lacked alot of sophistication with 3d effect elements like smoke, dust and clouds that just look much better on console games erm like Killzone...
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what to say to this one. Killzone had a lot of volumetric clouds did it? Have you tried using a smoke grenade in Crysis? If not, give it a go and then come back and say Crysis lacks 3d effects like smoke.
 
This is nonsense, Crysis AI doesn't seem to be as complex as that of even Halo 2, not to mention the later games. Even Halo 2 had group behaviors, vehicle usage, and it has never displayed bugs like literally running in circles.

Oh and Crysis levels are usually far more limited than even Halo 1. Sure, they sometimes give the illusion of larger spaces by surrounding you with entire seashores and giant mountains - but you can't climb those hills and the actual interactive areas are always enclosed.
On the other hand levels like the snow canyon - "assault on the control room" - in Halo 1 can be very large continuous open areas with a lot of friendlies and enemies doing their own fighting, with multiple choices for ground and even air vehicles (that could even be stolen from their alien pilots before they can get in them), and everything just works fine without any bugs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OJuzoj31YU
There's nothing like this in any of the Crysis games, although I think Just Cause 2 is another good example of large open levels and good AI able to operate in there.

So I think you probably haven't played the Halo games, or can't really recall the actual scale of things going on in there.
 
pjbliverpool said:
Enemy AI in Halo 2 is better than Crysis? What enemy AI? There's no way at all the two can be compared, the size and complexity of the environments in Crysis make the requirements on the games AI orders of magnitude more complex than Halo 2's. I haven't played the other games but from what I've seen, none of them even begin to approach the size and complexity of the levels in Crysis.
Click to expand...

As much as I loved Crysis 2 (I played on Veteran) the enemy AI was definitely inferior compared to Halo's, the enemy AI many times got stuck in geometry or falling off a bridge with no reason...hell I've seen an enemy killing 2 of his squadmates by throwing grenades when I was cloaked and they had no idea on where I was - aliens on the other side seem to be much better in terms of pathfinding which seems to be the biggest problem with the human AI.

Crysis 2 must've been the most buggy/glitchy game I've played this gen by far...hell halfway through the game I carried 3 weapons and I was "oh that's cool, that's because of a nanosuit uprgade I made earlier...right?" of course it wasn't a nanosuit upgrade.

Don't get me wrong though the game was great with some excellent level design, awesome gunplay and breathtaking visuals but it's pretty clear IMO that the game needed more development time improving things like AI, needed more testing and maybe even iron out the frame-rate problems in the earlier stages of the campaign on the console versions like DF suggested in the face-off.

With that being said I can't wait to see the next projects especially from third party devs based on CryEngine 3.
 
It's not like the AI was bad, it's just that claiming it to be more complex - and even by orders of magnitude - than Halo is so wrong.

Also, AI is just one piece of the puzzle, there's also level design, larger scale tactics, and variety in the game's systems.
For example C2 has those larger alien enemies that are kinda similar to Halo's Hunters, with heavy weaponry and large metal shields on their arms and all.
Crysis-2-Heavy-Enemy.jpg


However, they did not get some of the stuff right that makes Hunter fights so intense and memorable. Like, there always appear in pairs, so you have to divide your attention but focus your fire; they can charge you all of a sudden, so you always have to be on your toes; and they usually come after some already fierce battles as reinforcements so you're already psyched up from those fights. You also have more variety in your weapons so you can use different tactics every time, and sometimes you can get into vehicles to gain a serious advantage, and so on.
Which means that even if the AI was the same in both games, all the added elements could still make them feel very different.
 
Crysis 2 AI even on highest difficulty is brain.dead.All that difficulty gives you in terms of challenge is the fact that far less bullets is needed for you to die,but AI is still stupid as ever.
 
I dunno, they seem to move around a lot, actively chasing the player and such. That's not the problem IMHO.

It's rather that the general scope of the game is a bit limited - it's always just a few enemies at once and mostly conventional weapons on both sides. Call of Duty relies on heavy scripting to spice up the gameplay, Halo has like three times as many gadgets from energy weapons to armor powers and all kinds of vehicles, not sure about KZ or BF though.
Anyway, Crysis 2 seems to be more about various machine guns against either a group of humans with same machine guns, or like three major kinds of aliens with some rocket launcher or c4 thrown in. There's just not that much to do with that, you can't build levels like driving ATVs around the legs of a giant walker that has a bunch of alien crew with plasma weapons and also a couple of alien tanks and fighters, or shoot guys on a TV screen with a 40mm cannon from an invincible airplane orbiting above them, and so on.

It's still a cool game by all means but if Crytek want's to get above 90% general ratings with part 3, then they'll have to increase the variety of the content, it's not enough to just make it a long campaign. More different weapons, more different enemies, added on top of the existing nanosuit variety should help to create exponentially more combinations.
 
Dont think the pc crowd would even buy crysis 3 if it was even more scripted.
But yeah some cool set pieces would certainly help with the press.

But i always say press score == hype level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Tech Differences between Switch and 7th Gen (PS3/360) Games
2
Replies
21
Views
6K
GuardHei
G
digitalwanderer
Sleep apnea
Replies
2
Views
886
Arwin
Arwin
Cyan
"And the scrolls have foretold, of black wings in the cold" BYE Wii/X360/PS3.THANKS!!
Replies
3
Views
3K
Cyan
Cyan
R
DOOM 3 BFG Edition - Remastered, Armour-mounted flashlights + DOOM 1 & 2 [360/PS3/PC]
6 7 8
Replies
152
Views
37K
BoardBonobo
BoardBonobo
Cyan
Wholly unique/special ways to play in the next gen! Surprises inside
2
Replies
30
Views
8K
pjbliverpool
P
Back
Top