Gaming Crysis 2 Review

It seems a shame they were lazy with the PC version - no in-game settings, no DX11 at launch, etc.

BUT! - lengthy campaign (no 6 hour nonsense here!), interesting gameplay, most people say graphics are overall solid if not as groundbreaking as Crysis 1.

Don't really care about nuanced settings as I'm planning to run this game at maximum anyway. And as far as DX11 goes, Shogun 2 promised this too and they STILL don't have it. Think twice before condemning Crytek if you gave Creative Assembly a pass, guys.

 

Is evertyone for real on here???? You all think its only worth a 6??? You do realise it's the 360 version and not the PC version don't you? The game looks and plays far superiour than COD and BFBC2 on the 360 and they're worthy of an 8, so this game should be scored around 8.5 - 9.

Just because everyone is sour because its not the MASSIVE jump in gameplay and graphics from the original PC only game, you all seem to want to pull it pieces and give it rediculously low scores.

Well all other websites seem to think its worthy of 8 to 9's, so why do you PC fanboys seem to think the 360 game is only worth a 6?

And yes I am a PC gamer too, just not a sour one.

 

I think people are pretty sceptical that Crysis 2 has a multiplayer than can compete with BC2. And sorry to shock you, Bit-Tech don't look at other review sites and just give the same score. They actually look at things from a fresh perspective.

 

Greetings!

Crysis is famous for the graphics, Total Wars are not.

 

Why shouldn't you mark down a game based on its predecessors merits? Especially when the PC version has yet to rear it's head in the review and there have been clear concessions made.

What would you have said if, and this is an extreme example, between consoles, a game like COD lost it's multiplayer? Also, remember all the reviews of shoddy ports the PS3 used to get from the 360? They almost always got marked down. Let's face it, if you are a PC gamer, you take steps to achieve playable framerates and try keep them that way... i.e. V-sync. I think it's worth knocking a point for not being able to achieve that on standardised hardware alone with consoles; it just works does it? And seeing how sites are saying the PC version doesn't come with a full range of graphical options to tune performance on your machine, what do you think should happen? Consider that the original Crysis did, add in the better installment recieved an 8 on this very site, and... BAM!!! Consistency achieved.

 

that is a bold claim.

Crysis 1 gameplay was on par with BFBC2 conquest in power struggle. even exceed BFBC2 with its twist of nuke tanks.

Crysis 2 gameplay is a step backwards from Crysis 1. making it a generic shooter in a world full of CoD copy cats. (Medal of Honour '10, millions of CoD, Bad Company in vehicleless maps)

sure it looks better than CoD and the OTT lighting makes it look better than BFBC2. but does it really play better? it's basically CoD with annoying cloak, gone power struggle modes with massive maps and vehicles, come tiny CoD sized map with CoD killstreaks.

if you are a PC gamer, then you should have experienced Crysis. if you have experienced Crysis, you will know Crysis 2 is not a sequel, it's a step backwards. hence the lower score.

 

From what you can read all over the web the PC version won't be any better. Graphic setting (mainly) can't be change in-game but have to be done via CVAR files? Alright, but why? No DX11? WHAT THE ...?!

And I'm very sure B-T will give the PC version a proper test & review. I don't expect anything better than a 7 for the PC version either.

 

How are people playing this on the PC already? I just tried and it won't unlock because it's a day too early. ****ing DRM!

 

Unlocked in the USA I'd imagine. Oceans > Internet apparently

 

Thanks for the suggestion but all I could find was a DRM deauthorisation tool that would free up 1 install slot and nothing that would remove the DRM permanently.

 

I understand what everyone is saying, Crysis 2 is a step back in some elements from Crysis 1. But what I'm trying to state is that Crysis 2 on the 360 is the best looking game to date on the 360, and the gameplay is also one of the best on the 360. I genuinely think it deserves a 8.5 on the 360.

But the PC version? Yeah I agree it should recieve a 6 or 7 based on the fact it hasnt achieved much since the original, and in some cases a step back.

I just think people should review and compare the 360 version of crysis 2 against other 360 games.

In other words I don't think you can compare the fastest and best car against the fastest and best fighter jet (a big difference i know but you know what I mean)

 

There will be nothing in the new game that wasn't in the old, and it will have lost so much. The fact is that Crysis 1 is beyond the capability of consoles, so it was only going to be a step backwards. In the good old days, there were 2 games; a pc version and a console version. This is the way it should still be....

It's a PC-dominated forum, and although the review was on the 360, the majority of the observations will apply to the PC version. The PC review will only cover the differences to the 360, and the differences will be few. So the score is the score for the game; the fact that the review was on the 360 is almost incidental.

They've dumbed down the suit to accommodate a controller.
They've picked a city setting because the 360 can't handle view distances.
They've reduced the overall quality of the graphics to accommodate the consoles.
They've removed saves and introduced checkpoints, again to ease the load on consoles.

Like most others on here, I think the score is generous considering the compromises this game has made.

It's a tribute to profit through mediocrity.

 

In the good old days, there were 2 games; a pc version and a console version. This is the way it should still be....

I totally agree, and I'm just as frustrated as the next PC gamer. I wish PC gaming still led the way and created truely next-gen games. I had much better expectations of Crysis 2 on the PC, and I do feel let down. But by the same token I think it's amazing they have managed to pull it off on the 360, albeit at the expense to the PC version.

I have total admiration for the Battlefield 3 team for truely making it a PC game and then porting it to the consoles. I hope this is the start of more to come and comments coming from EA stating they're gonna concentrate on PC more is a good sign.

I look forward to the day the PC rises again and consoles stand in its shadows. Thats why we pay thousands on hardware ey?

 

crysis for me was always about the stunning graphics, why have they scaled them back so far?!

 

Actually, in the even older, better days, there weren't 2 versions: there were PC games and there were console games, and rarely the twain did meet. Ports were the exception, not the rule, and this allowed games to be designed to the strengths of each platform rather than compromising merely so devs could make thrice the money for only a little more effort. And ports were rarely as good as games dedicated to a platform.

That's my main gripe with gaming today. No differentiation, no dedication. Homogeneity instead of specialty, resulting as nothing being as good as it could be.

The graphics I can take or leave (in general,) but more essential things like interface design (PRESS START, FFS!) mod support, and dedicated servers are a huge problem as well.

 

Greetings!

Tool developed by a modder to change graphic settings (click):

 

Awesome, have rep!

 

That took a modder a day. And Crytek couldn't be f***ed to do that themselves?

 

Crysis 2 = Crytek shamelessly cashing in on CoD's success.

Bit-Tech, say it like it is. It's a 6.

 

most devs don't seem to realise that if they release mod-tools for us/ unlock the console then PC community can fix most of the pap in the game. FarCry 2 could have been better with a few tweaks from modders. Look at stalker. If that game didnt have mod tools then it would not be so famous.