Top
160°
9.5

1UP: Crysis 2 Review

1UP writes: Crysis 2 is a beautifully realized game that delivers impressive environments, simplified controls, and a plethora of tactical combat options. The game empowers you to make gameplay choices that complement your play style both in single- and mulitplayer. Unfortunately the visually strong presentation and gameplay can't hide the mediocre setup for Crysis 3; for most of the game you play a silent protagonist who goes from mission to mission, following instructions as ordered. Then, when you reach the end of the campaign your character suddenly starts talking and you learn that this entire conflict is just a small part of something much bigger. Acid-trip style memories, reflections, and final recaps try to tie the plot together, but it still leaves you feeling a bit unfulfilled with just a flat, to-be-continued cliffhanger. But the ride there is still thrilling, even if the payoff is mediocre. Yet despite any story hiccups, I can't stress how incredible it all looks.

The story is too old to be commented.
Stealth20k2434d ago

wow an A- for graphics only..........shocking........ .......

what other explaination is there for a review that says the gameplay is bad, the story is terrible, but the graphics are top notch

bluwulf2434d ago (Edited 2434d ago )

Well in all fairness Crytek claimed their game engine would trump everything on the market. Other developers have done what they have done & more on the PS3, without having to restrict the game to a SUBHD resolution with a low framerate & popin problems + an install to run the game normally. Their biggest competition on a factual/feature basis pulled it off without the bragging as well. Not to say it doesn't look good, but you can't scream look at me, then fall when you're on stage.

Its not shocking considering their max hardware requirements were the Arcade 360 sku. But its a blow to PC/PS3 owners to see that Crytek didn't move beyond what the 360's hardware could do. Sure, the PS3 version has multiple hardware/gpu features the 360 doesn't have, as well as the PC. But you can tell that the game was dumbed down from what Crysis 1 Was. Anyone who can't see that is just in denial at this point.

The only people who think that Crysis2 is a technical sub-hd marvel, are 360 owners at this point in the game. Its true, they are used to SubHd games like alan wake, and non deferred rendering engines like Halo & Gears. So this engine is a blessing in that maybe they can see the perks of modern game engine technology now that its on their console, and its nothing that needs to be downplayed.

You can't even adjust Anti Aliasing on the PC version...

really crytek?

Really?

Active Reload2434d ago

"Unfortunately the visually strong presentation and gameplay can't hide the mediocre setup for Crysis 3;"

Somethings not right there...

baodeus2434d ago

so are you saying deffered lighting is better and more taxing on consoles than forward lighting?

And FYI, cryteck use multiple lighting techs (including deffered lighting, but their main focus is the dynamic ones).

"Other developers have done what they have done & more on the PS3, without having to restrict the game to a SUBHD resolution with a low framerate & popin problems + an install to run the game normally" yes, because Crysis 2 didn't have to restricted to small area, uninteractive environment, and many on rail sequences. Have you even play crysis 2?

Oh and about subHD, you know there are games that ran at 1080p, 120fps on console right. So technically KZ3 or CS2 aint shitz compare to those arcade games then. Please explain.

Really bluwulf?

Really?

Oye, why did i even bother replying. This site is rediculous. Well it ran by fanboy, so i shouldn't expect much.

hoops2434d ago

"Other developers have done what they have done & more on the PS3, without having to restrict the game to a SUBHD resolution with a low framerate & popin problems + an install to run the game normally"

Really?
Does KZ3 use real time lighting?

Real time dynamic global illumination?

Advanced Polybump?

Real Time Eye adaptation & high dynamic range(HDR) lightin?

Dynamic volumetric light beams and light shaft effects IN REAL TIME?

Interactive and destructible environment?

Subsurface scattering?

And is as large and open as Crysis 2?

Is KZ3 environment more interactive than Crysis2?

Here is the quick answer for you.
NOPE.
Look it up. Play the games. See for yourself.

So lets see KZ3 use those features LISTED ABOVE WHICH IT DOES NOT HAVE OR LITTLE OF IT and see if it does not end up subhd.
The PC version is the one to get, especially when DX11 hits the game, however the PS3 and Xbox360 versions of this game is a step above all FPS games from a technical standpoint.
Now you can bubble me down...

XabiTheHumble2434d ago (Edited 2434d ago )

@hoops
Some of those features done pretty decent others not so much. But they all have huge compromises on the console versions for it and lol at the destruction and interactivity points. Not only did you list it twice (running out of points?) but those features are extremely basic in crysis nothing, Killzone 3 couldn't do without having to sacrifice performance.
"And is as large and open as Crysis 2"
The maps AND player count on the multiplayer aspect of Killzone3 compared to Crysis 2 multiplayer make Crysis 2 look silly.
Yes, there is a couple features on that list that Killzone doesn't do as well as Crysis (or at all) but there is also a list of features that Killzone does better than Crysis without having to compromise framerate, resolution shadows, textures ect.
Nice try though.
@baodeus
"Oh and about subHD, you know there are games that ran at 1080p, 120fps on console right. So technically KZ3 or CS2 aint shitz compare to those arcade games then."
How is this a response to the quote you posted in your comment? Better yet what is the relevance of this comment?

baodeus2433d ago (Edited 2433d ago )

so what did Bluwulf said about it ran in subHD vs HD? I'm pointing out exactly why HD resolution doesn't mean anything when you consider what is running underneath it. It is a few textures below native 720p, and fanboys really make a big deal out of it as being subHD? Really? Bluwulf really ran out of excuses for why KZ3 is technically better than crysis. And guess what, that all he ever says, never had anything concrete to back it up either.

There, i just point out why resolution doesn't really matter (example of 1080p at 120fps but does it do as much as kz or crysis...no right? So why do you think Crytek sacrifice a few pixel (not really far from true HD no less) for their larger semi open games, lighting,physics,realistic texture? Why did GT5 sacrifice overall environments polygons, pixelate effects, low AA, for non native 1080p resolution, more polygon and texture on cars? Why did Alan Wake have to sacrifice a lot of resolution for environmental effects, real time lighting, large scale, and 4MSAA, etc...? Why halo reach sacrifice resolution for larger scale, 4 split screen coop, HDR lighting and deferred lighting,particle effects, etc....? What do u think KZ2/KZ3 sacrifice for 720p and 30fps? What do u think they sacrifice for 3D and just 2 coop split screen (vs. 4 like halo)? Go read on Digital something for the up and downs of KZ. U see a better picture overall.

They all sacrifice something, some for gameplay some for pure graphics, etc...because both consoles are limited. PS3 potential is not unlimited like many fanboy would believe. x360 and ps3 are quite similar, but each does have something that they can do better than the other.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2433d ago
tatotiburon2434d ago

"what other explaination is there for a review that says the gameplay is bad, the story is terrible, but the graphics are top notch "

Like killzone 3?? a short and boring campaign, average gameplay with nothing new, a mp full of bugs and still reviews of 9/10 for graphics?

HeavenlySnipes2434d ago

how IGN said the 360 version has the best console graphics. I guess the PS3 version looks like Kinectimals or something if both versions of the game aren't the 'graphics king'.

Whatever, the MP is what makes or breaks an FPS because if the story isn't coop (IMO) I don't see myself replaying it (not a trophy whore). The MP demo I played, graphics aside, was boring and buggy. I hated the melee (its way to fast), the 6v6 player count is way to low; they could of just created larger maps, the hit detection was on COD levels (which translates to terrible) and the hitmarkers are too small; making it hard to know if you are actually hitting someone. You end up playing like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Spamming the R1 button because you can't tell if the guy is going to die or not. I pick this up on mah PS3 when the price goes down for the SP.