Developer Crytek made a huge splash in the gaming industry when they released the still-famous Crysis on the PC and wowing every gamer out there with its eye-popping visuals. Now, times have changed, and Crytek have pushed the series beyond the PC platform onto the world of consoles while promising the best of the best of graphics on consoles as well. Did they live up to the promise?
Let me start off by saying this; graphics are a subjective thing. Some will view one game as having the greatest graphics of all time on a platform, and others will view a different game as the one deserving of that title. I, for one, feel that Crysis 2 does NOT deliver the "best console graphics" that Crytek daringly claimed it would have. That's not to say that the game looks bad, by any means. Crysis 2 is a visual treat. However, the sacrifices that Crytek had to make to fit all of the impressive things such as dynamic lighting rendered in real time and global illumination really hamper the experience. Pop-ins are about as abundant as mosquitos in a swamp in mid-summer. Whole entire objects will appear out of mid-air as you get closer. Textures that look horrible are also somewhat plentiful and seem out-of-place in such a beautiful game. The ghosting caused by the Temporal Anti-Aliasing isn't helpful in making C2 look any sharper, and there's still a lot of aliasing occurring. Overall, Crytek was very ambitious with the graphics and ended up with a great-looking product, but ultimately failed to deliver on their claims.
Crysis 2 may be a visual beast, but any true gamer knows that a successful game requires good gameplay, not just pretty graphics. Crysis 1 wasn't really particularly well-known for its gameplay or story, and it's clear the trend continues with Crysis 2. What's that? Oh, you want a shooter with a compelling story and great dialogue? Well, look as far away from Crysis 2 as possible. There is really no story in the game and if there was, it's extremely poorly written. This can probably be traced back to the horrible dialogue that explains nothing and serves no purpose other than to provide an excuse to drop you in a new area. Unfortunately, the gameplay itself isn't all that great either. The A.I. is dumb enough to the point where I was sitting at a high vantage point and picked off one soldier, then another ran over to the body and said something along the lines of "Oh no, he's dead!" and I proceeded to killing him. The process repeated a few times and pretty soon I had a pile of 6-7 bodies all in one spot. Other stupid things like not being aware that I was crouching RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE ENEMY really made the A.I. even more pathetic to me (and before you ask, I'm playing on Supersoldier, the highest difficulty). Meanwhile, the choice and freedom that was highly hyped up by ads really just turned out to be either put on armor and go all guns blazing, or put on stealth and sneak your way through. The problem with stealth is that many times, I found myself thinking that this spot behind a solid wall was safe and uncloaked, only to find the A.I. somehow seeing through said wall and knowing I'm there. As for going all guns blazing, the gameplay isn't very fluid and the clunky shooting mechanics never really makes you feel like you're a bad*ss in a superpowered suit. I had some hope for the campaign, but the game completely shattered it in every way imaginable.
But of course, the meat of any first-person shooter nowadays is the multiplayer mode. You'd think that the folks at Crytek UK would be able to come up with a very innovative multiplayer considering the game's centered around being a bad*ss with a suit. Upon starting the MP, you'll notice that you're limited to one preset class, outfitted with a primary, secondary, grenade, and (unsurprisingly) 3 suit enhancements (read: perks). Once you level up a bit, you'll unlock Custom Class slots, up to 5. After you kill an enemy, collect their dog-tag in a streak without dying to get a bonus such as "Maximum Radar." Sound familiar? Unfortunately, it seems that Crytek UK just decided to go with the "copy CoD in every possible way" route. The only major differences I can think of is the fact that you can go into Armor or Stealth mode and that there are 4 preset classes instead of 5. Armor mode is the equivalent of Marathon + Lightweight, where you or the enemy can just rush in head-first and melee the crap out of the other guy to kill him. Stealth is just improving the often-hated method of sitting in a corner with the ability to be 99% invisible. Combine this with a "suit upgrade" that doesn't make you show up on the "Maximum Radar" and tiny arena maps with plenty of hiding spots and you get a horrifically CoD-like game.
Overall, Crysis 2 is a very disappointing package. It feels as if Crytek spread themselves too thin by developing each version indepedently and ultimately end up creating a subpar game. Crysis 2 is the ultimate example of "graphics aren't everything."
The sequel to one of PC's most celebrated exclusives went multi-platform, with a huge impact to CryEngine technology and the core make-up of the game. Join Alex and John for an extended chat about what the title meant to them, how the console versions stacked up and how CryEngine evolved for multi-platform development.
Crysis 2 was the beginning of EA's influence on Crytek. Not only was the multiplayer full of bugs at launch (still has today) but the entire game both SP and MP was redesigned to cater to the call of duty crowd. 3 kills - UAV, 7 kills, overhead gunship, etc.
Agreed with the sentiments of the video. Can consoles at the time run Crysis? Technically no. Unless ~14fps is acceptable as "being able to run Crysis." Other games at the time, KZ2/KZ3 ran (locked 30fps) and look much better (albeit horrible FOV). Result of a first party engine tailored made for the hardware, and an engine made with compromises to get a game to "run" on consoles, and at the end of the day gimp the PC version leaving Crysis 2 feeling... lacking. DX11 patch helped though, but no getting around that weak AI.
This game was okay I guess, but paled in comparison to the first game. The multiplayer was a better experience, but the single player didn't really feel right to me. I also didn't like the music that they went with in the game, I found it to be kind of annoying. I was so disappointed with the single player campaign, that I didn't even bother with the 3rd game.
Zach from WellPlayed writes about seven IPs that Xbox should turn to solve its exclusive problem
I’ll take a new Streets of Rage, Dino Crisis and Crysis from that list. TimeSplitters would be cool but can’t see it happening
Replies(3)
I think a big new, must play, ip would help.
Original Xbox had halo.
Xbox360 had Gears.
X1 hasnt got one so far.
Sequel to Alan wake, sequel to Ryse, sequel to sunset overdrive, find a way to release scalebound that game looked insane, release Fable 4. A new Up or two to mix things up and boom, you can revitalize the system. Naturally these games have to be of high quality
The worst part is that they paid for both those exclusives... Wasn't even in house. Not even sure what Xbox has brought to the game besides new age online on console...
They need a bunch, at least one across every major genre that can provide differences to established multiplats and their competitors franchises.
Something with logical thought out systems, that make for a believable and solid experience, genre defining, made by teams people trust would be great.
They haven't earned their place in the market, they've been riding on the back of people they've bought with money, instead of supporting the industry and giving back to the gamers with what makes this hobby fun, good experiences that take people somewhere in their imagination.
Sony and Nintendo do that, as do multiple devs outside of those companies.
MS should remove Phil Spencer from leadership, hire someone who knows videogames and can actually do something with the resources available at Microsoft.
Someone with a backbone, who will fight to build Microsoft Studios into a truly respected game maker, not a spoilt child, riding around the industry with their Parent's hard earned money.
I personally Consider QB and Ryse and Halo 5 to be must play games.
And Ori and the Blind Forest.
Whether or not these some of these games are on PC or not is irrelevant, since you Listed OG Halo, which was on PC, and OG gears, which was on PC. (with added content no less)
As Far as "New" is Concerned. Yeah I think QB's ending was underwhelming, but other than that, it was a Fantastic game that deserves more love than Hate.
Regardless of what Critics say.
Critics Loved the Movie: "it Follows" and "Get out" and I despised every second of those Films.
A Critic's POV is only half the equation.
Sometimes you gotta just see for your self.
@Combatcash
Microsoft needs NEW IPS, rehqshing old ones ad nauseum is part of the problem! Also...
-Sequel to Alan Wake: There already was one, didn't make much of a blip.
-Sequel to Ryse: I don't see how a sequel to a mediocre game can help Microsoft any.
-Sequel to Sunset Overdrive: Microsoft didn't give SO the marketing it deserved and the game suffered as a result. I don't see Insomniac risking making another one unless MS paid them MASSIVE amounts of money. Also, Insomniac is making PS4 Spider-Man, and that's gonna be one of Sony's tentpole games this year, so Insomniac doesn't need to work for MS.
-Find a way to release Scalebound that game looked insane: MS CANCELED Scalebound, so that is dead on the water, and I seriously doubt Platinum is very eager to work on a MS exclusive anymore.
-Release Fable 4: I don't trust Peter Molyneux no make me a sandwich, let alone a new game. Face it, the Fable franchise became more mediocre with every game, and Western role playing games have advanced way beyond Fable's concept. Fable 4 would just seem like a crappy unimaginative clone of The Witcher 3 at this point.
Seriously, MS needs innovation, not dipping into the well again and again expecting players not to get bored of the same ol' same ol'.
None of these games have anything to do with the xbox brand. Making these kind of exclusive deals wont help MS but would be the case of TR exclusivity Again. XBOX Needs to make its oen identity with new ip and good sequels to games they have under their belt.. Not just throw cash at any random franchise and make it hostage to their console!
it's so simple. just do a banjo and kazooie remake along the lines of the recent crash games that would be a guaranteed success. do whatever it takes to make a kotor 3 or kotor remake another guaranteed success
Save Xbox from what?
A platform that just reported growth . .
. . that just made MS billions in its last financial report?
oh you mean you'd like to see more exclusives games. .
Fix your headline then?
I'd like to see an increased volume of varied and diverse content coming to the box. They don't necessarily have to from First Party only. A few collaborations here and there.
Smart investments in both SP and MP content.
No yea the Xbox is doing great! No MS got into this business to sell half of what the competitors sell, yes they prefer it that way actually. Denile is strong like bull.
Okay
So we are trying to save Xbox from the competition?
If they released as many AAA games as their rival and still didn't sell as many consoles
Would they still need saving?
Xbox is its own benchmark - they've done 80 mill in the past and had even more AAA games than XO
They just need to match or outdo themselves again
Also the current gen is a wrap.
@Heelix
Your avatar is very fitting. In the hardware business you need to see growth, in order to get returns on the money you're spending. The reason MS is starting to move over into these paid subscriptions is cause the return is very great. MS lost billions trying to compete in the console market and due to the fact that just recently starting to see a profit. If MS can not sell you a xbox, then no paid subscriptions. You bring up 80 million 360 sold, but how many was multiple's to the same person? I mean a 56% failure rate is a lot. So that coincides with only 40+ million xbox live "members" at the time of the 360. That's "members" and not subscribers. So if you made multiple accounts on console that counted as a "member".
So unfortunately as much as you try to downplay. Technically they need to see a growth and not in the red like they have been most of MS console life.
Who cares how much money they made. What are they doing with it?!
Okay, I guess you can stuff hundred dollar bills in an XB1 and games will miraculously show up on the screen then.
How much does Microsoft pay you for nonsense talk?
Exactly. Why should any gamer care if a Company makes money in a way it doesn't do service to us? Is all that money beeing reinvested in new IPs? No, in MS's case they imvest that money on more services which are solely created to extract even more money from us with minal effort and resources on their part.
Thats what MS is doing at the moment.
Actually that $100 bill would pay for almost a year of GamePass so they gave you 150 games for a year. Or you could buy a game or two from the marketplace. I'd like them to bundle it with a $100
Replies(1)
But when your closest competitor is outselling you over a 2:1 ratio, it's still a problem. If Sony were only ahead by 10-15 million units I might agree with you, but consumer perception is a big deal and has legs. Bad news travels fast and this kills brands.
Xbox one won't get no where near Xbox 360 sales which were inflated due to RROD anyway. They are compared against playstation and Nintendo
Releasing more games will never ever hurt so stop the nonsense. Yall are so pathetic instead of asking for more yall are settling for far less and asking others to expect less
The only reason ms and Xbox team so quite is because they are more than 40 million behind the best console in gaming today
Again stop this nonsense demand more don't settle for less
"Xbox one won't get no where near Xbox 360 sales which were inflated due to RROD anyway"
Years later people still perpetuate this falsehood. The RROD boxes were replaced under the 3 year warranty and did not count towards sales.
boba
maybe check your facts early on MS didn't' admit to having these issues it was until later when MS gave the 3 years warranty. There are many gamers who had to buy the xbox360 more than once. All this so they can say they got to the market first and had a early start
I think some of you are slow or maybe you just see what you want to see. Did you miss this part:
"I'd like to see an increased volume of varied and diverse content coming to the box. They don't necessarily have to from First Party only. A few collaborations here and there.
Smart investments in both SP and MP content."
The part where we all agree they need to do more?
so what do they need saving from? They're the only ones who can improve their situation.
In trouble they definitely aren't which is why I mentioned their growth in the gaming division.
Their mission is to profit the most out of one single individual person over many.
You pump out services and microtransactions. Soon, you'll see it become multi tiered. They'll maybe even help you rent out DLCs in the future for a higher premium.
What do exclusives need to become successful? A large amount of consoles sold so they're opting in on stacking multiple layers of money with the lowest number ratio aka the least people.
They're hush hush with a dead end trail, but I got it figured out. This is why you'll never see the same amount of new first party IPs compared to the rest.
The Xbox you knew is done. Jump ship for any of the much better alternatives.
@Heelix
Diverse content is a blanket statement. Yay, more subscription based things....Yay for me. Xbox division has been in trouble since the beginning. They have lost billions upon billions over the course of the original xbox and xbox 360. Investors was wanting MS to sell the Xbox division and move on. MS is betting the house on selling everyone on subscription based services. Minimal cost for them and huge returns. But in order to do that, they need more people buying xbox's and subscribing to their services.
Maybe you need to read closely yourself.
Real, diversifying games is what will save the XBox brand from dying. Multiplats and games like Sea of Thieves won't cut it.
That's what the article is referring to.
MS can report growth is because of microtransactions and subscriptions.. The xbox division is losing consumer confidence BIG TIME.. You think they came up with game pass because they like us? Look at how well sea of theives sold btw.. Thats sad because of how thirsty their customers were for a new game only to get stabbed in the back with another one of their schemes. Keeping people paying into that game as they make more DLC to sell you.. Whats even more sad is when they see the sales data, theyre going to think customers want that kind of stuff.. A sequel or more games with that structure will follow..
If I am not mistaken the growth they reported is year over year for the month of March, not annual growth and not profit. As far as I know the only company to have reported profit for their console is Sony.
Shhh, you can’t say such things here. You’ll get attacked by the Sony fanboys swimming around in these waters.
'I'd like to see an increased volume of varied and diverse content coming to the box. They don't necessarily have to from First Party only. A few collaborations here and there'
I can agree with that bit. They should be doing better for such a cash rich player. This is their 3rd gen. . . They're not rookies anymore.
lol c'mon are you for real? do you really believe that? you guys barely got any new IP on the xbox 360 and if they were they were lackluster. same goes for xbox one. can't believe people will still have hope and will continue to show support for this paperweight console and this garbage corporation.
@zackeroniii, mass effect, gears of war, Alan wake, lost oddissey, blue dragon and mass effect are a few I can think of, and they were all high quality. Not all of them sold well, but IMO they were great fucking games
Mass Effect also came out on PS3 and a majority of those IPs were left behind a very long time ago.
Xbox has so few "main line" franchises or IPs that have that power to bring a successful sequel while PlayStation is building and growing like recent God of War and soon Last of Us 2. Even expect that Spiderman game to have a trilogy.
That's why PS4 is selling like hot cakes consistently because gamers know they're getting hardware that is properly backed and not shallow.
Microsoft tends to front-load their consoles at the start of a gen, it's just that they dwindle significantly as the years go by.
I don't know why you think they won't have a decent start.
What makes you think, especially after this gen, that they even have any "big guns"?
Nice list, I'm still surprised Timesplitters hasn't been brought back in some form (remake or sequel).
My 7 would be:
Old IPs:
1) PGR5
2) Conker's Bad Fur Day 2
3) Fable 4
4) Perfect Dark 3
New IPs
5) Killer Instinct Vs Mortal Kombat
6) A new action game by Itagaki-san ( the guy who made Ninja Gaiden)
7) A new cinematic AAA action adventure game.
Apart from Fable 4 - I doubt any of the others will happen , but still it'd be nice to see something like this happen at E3.
Yeah I did think of Perfect Dark and Battletoads. But as both are Rare games I didn't include them. Would love both though.
Conkers is a good call. I didn't even think of that one!
Yeah I'd kill for a new TimeSplitters
Replies(2)
Im with you on PGR5 100%, been waiting for that game since Microsoft bought the IP after Bizarre went bye bye.
I dont understand one thing.. Need good exclusive level games that a step above mist third party games? Why not just get a Ps4?
I have a PS4 ( and Xbox, PC + Wii U)
MS does have a lot of decent IPs that could be great IPs - unfortunately most of them never get sequels.
I really want to see them invest more in their first party games and studios.
Replies(4)
Pure PlayStation's newest writer has a bone to pick with overpowered shotguns in multiplayer shooters.
Single weapons are not a problem...it's the same crappy system everyone has adopted, bloody loadouts
Letting people choose their weapon at the start of the map causing unbalanced problems instead of starting everyone out with the same crappy weapons and let them pick up randomly generated weapons on the map.
Like the goof old days of Unreal Tournament. My God I miss that game so bad.
If shotguns were removed from video games, Gears of War's online player base would collapse lol
And Resistance 1. It would be the only remaster I would buy and the only game that would make me pay for online play.
edit:
@ FunAndGun
Agreed. It was without any doubt the game I played the most in my 26 years of gaming "career" and like I said it would make me forget about my gamer principles.
@Abash - Yes it would. But everyone starts with one and power weapons are located on the map so its a little different then loadouts at least
It is basically competitive law at this point that 'weapon balance' was never an issue until load outs became standard in shooters. Like everyone is mentioning, which is actually quite reassuring (there have been countless threads in Doom's steam forums about modes without loadouts and they get run over by 'modern' players), if you don't spawn the fack in with the thing...then it DOESN'T MATTER how great the weapon is.
Instead we have this weird hybrid where shotguns are still considered OP in most games, yet are laughably unlike what they really are...I agree they're generally a mess in shooters but it all goes back to loadouts...They should split players in half within a certain range...but shouldn't be a weapon meddling with 'effective in all situations', which is what developers spend thousands of hours wasting their time with any more. Anyone remember watching what BF4 went through with this? Choked pump shotguns were somehow more effective at ranges of 25 to 50 meters...but were 'less accurate' at closer range; actively encouraging players to engage distant targets. Pump shotguns were also more powerful than semi auto variants, but the latter would also have less recoil and more hip fire stability...? Making it pointless to ever use a pump shotgun for close range... devs need to give it up, they're in over their heads with this.
Back to Doom's SS, only because it's arguably the most iconic video game shotgun of all time...right now? That thing should unfold everything within 10 feet...but instead it's effective range ends when they're no longer touching the muzzle...all because you can spawn with it, and they're trying to balance it around that. knock it off...make it a pick up...make people fight for it...and when someone EARNS it...make it blatantly obvious why everyone was fighting for it.
Good to see RFoM getting love. That's what I signed in to talk about.
Don't remove shotguns, demand balance and remove bad games from your purchase list. The original RFoM shotgun was horrible, but they eventually patched it to pretty much exactly how a shotgun should function in a game. A shotgun should be close range, a desperation shot stronger and longer range than a melee. This also assumes you're not playing a game with stupid 1hit melees from the front where the enemy runs through bullets to knife you. 2hit melee should be standard from the front and could be 1hit melee directly in the back (like a surprise, shocking attack, unexpected, undefended and lined up to hit a vulnerable area 1hit makes acceptable sense from the back).
Shotguns in a loadout game obviously need to be a bit stronger/longer range, since it's your only weapon. Bottom line, you just need to buy or spend your time on games that have a balanced shotgun if it annoys you, like the patched RFoM shotgun where they lowered the range significantly.
This is why Halo 5 MP is brilliant with equal starts. You want a shotgun? well there's one on the map and you gotta fight the other team to get to it.
^No i didn't mean it's brilliant because of equal starts lol, I meant it's brilliant in general and has equal starts. Independent attributes. Also, Halo itself is a pretty old franchise.
Best multiplayer game that's been released in a long time. I agree with you adding even starts with weapons spread on the maps to be fought over is far superior to the new generation of multiplayer games.
Halo is arena based. That is why it works for games like Unreal and Quake. You can't just remove loadouts for every type of shooter there is.
@KwietStorm That's true, but that also makes it a really competitive game by nature.
My problem isn't shotguns so much as it is grenade launchers. I can't stand people who just use grenade launchers and rack up tons of kills with no skill. At least with shotguns you have to get pretty close to the target first
If you're going to pick a single weapon to get rid of, make it the damn sniper rifle.
Again depends on the game and comes down to balance. Any game you can 1hit quickscope (CoD, Bad Company 1) needs better balance. Games where you need to 'hardscope' (fully looking through the scope) and sniper shots don't fire straight from the hip are usually examples of good snipers in games.
RFoM for example, hip shots fired randomly. A bunch of people mentioned it firing straight from the hip, but Insomniac was right on this (even though they screwed up plenty after RFoM). You had to hardscope. Hipshots or quickscoping was desperation, knowing it was very unlikely to hit, just a last ditch effort to luck out. This was before quickscoping was really talked about a bunch from CoD scrubs, but don't remember anyone not hardscoping. Anyone trying to kill you close range with a sniper in RFoM either got a lucky shot or died.
Firing straight from the hip might not be a huge issue for normal legit players, but now scrubs put targets on their TVs, so they have crosshairs in situations they normally wouldn't. So if a sniper fires straight from the hip in these games, then there's no need to aim down the sights/scope and the game becomes broken.
I recently started paying bf4 and it was ridiculous how most people deliberately ignore objectives so they can go sniper and crash helicopters into tall buildings so they can get a vantage point and camp the entire match. Everyone just rushes in for kills like it's COD and goes sniper because it's 'cool' or something. Every server has 1000+ tickets and zero respawn delay on vehicles and there's just no interest in strategy. Maybe it's just that I've been watching a few project reality videos but I was incensed haha.
The stupid thing about it is that snipers in that game can be really useful. The MAV, the laze and the motion detectors are all incredible support gadgets but no one seams to use them?
Objection!!!!As someone who mains shotties in any game that has them.If you allow me to get within your range where my gun will obviously rekt you.That isnt my fault.Thats you not being aware of your surroundings.Next time dont go in enclosed areas where a lot of shotties users tend to hang around.
Replies(2)
Lol that's so not correct. A lot of games are corridors only then you have the health bar that's usually a good portion of a clip to kill compared to point blank shotgun damage. You can main the shotty but they're the easiest weapon to yield in all games which is why newbs and people who are generally less then awesome always use them.
Sounds to me like it's a skill thing, while I get kills with shotties I rarely get killed by them. Like the man said, map awareness. People that are actually good rarely complain or call people noobs
Definitely depends on play style! I'm not going into a small building trying to flush out shotty users!!! I Always use assault rifles and play the mid-range game. What sickens me is when you're a mile away and the shotty kills you when you're unloading an assault rifle in their face!!! But hey it happens :D
Git Gud. Seriously, I've used that weapon and people used that weapon against me in various games. I've never had once complained about it. From The Last of Us, Uncharted, Killzone ,COD Multiplayer or etc. It's all about strategy, teamwork and Skills. It's not about the weapons.
I won't bother partaking in this argument because of the sheer amount of butt hurt involved, but to even try and suggest that Shotguns require any amount of skill is absolutely hilarious.
People who tend to use this argument, that a certain weapon takes great amounts of skill to use, usually means they crutch that weapon themselves. And you sound like a typical crutch shotgun kind of guy.
Replies(2)
are you kidding
Good review!
Too Low
Troll review is troll
The AI is really really good, when it works. It is very glitchy though. Sometimes it will not seem to notice you or will see you and then run off turning its back to you. Othertimes though it will flank the living sh*t out of you!