Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Crysis vs Crysis Warhead vs Crysis 2 (PC)

Last response: in Video Games
Share

Crysis vs Crysis Warhead vs Crysis 2 (PC)

Total: 154 votes (42 blank votes)

  • Crysis
  • 41 %
  • Crysis Warhead
  • 15 %
  • Crysis 2 (DX11)
  • 28 %
  • I like all equally
  • 12 %
  • I dislike all three
  • 8 %
February 9, 2012 6:20:27 AM

Crysis vs Crysis Warhead vs Crysis 2

The poll choices are in regards to which of these games is best overall.

I believe the original Crysis is best overall, but barely. I feel it has better graphics than Warhead and Crysis 2.

I believe Crysis Warhead has the best gameplay, but comes in second due to less impressive visuals and the fact it's too short.

I believe Crysis 2, even with the DX11/high-res texture pack, is a visual dissapointment. If it was called something other than Crysis, I would say it's a beautiful and excellent game. But when viewed in the magnificent light of the first two games, it falls short.

I would like to hear your opinion.
February 9, 2012 3:05:51 PM

for overall game-play crysis 2 wins hands down. the single player is ok if limited but the multi-player is as good as any current game apart from bf3.
the multi-player on the first 2 were pretty poor to be honest. although some did like it.
the single player on 1 and warhead were poor to adequate but both very shallow. i loved the open world aspect of 1 but it was to open and ended up a bit of a mishmash. warhead tightened up the single player but its story let the game down as its character development was lacking...

you may not agree but thats the beauty of gaming. not every 1 likes the same thing..
February 9, 2012 3:17:23 PM

I think Crysis is the best game. Crysis 2's new way of using suit powers is pretty cool, but also a little bit limiting at times. I do think overall that was a good change, but the game itself was boring IMO.

Original Crysis ftw.

Warhead was good, but not quite as fun as the original.
Related resources
February 9, 2012 6:01:29 PM

I prefer the original over Warhead or Crysis 2.

I agree with HEXiT in that not everybody isn't going to like the same thing.

I like games that let me set my own pace and choose a combat style, and I think the first game gives you the most flexibility in that approach. I think the story was "good." It didn't suck me in like FEAR or Metro2033, but it was certainly more interesting to me than anything from the BF or COD camp. It was good enough to keep me glued to the computer through most of my first play-through.

Crysis 2, when judged by itself and not compared against the original, is still a great looking, fun game......but, IMO, they totally ruined the mechanics that made the first one so good. Totally dumbed it down with the gutted suit functionality and lack of movement options. It feels sloppy, laggy, and not at all like CRYSIS. The fact that they also dismissed most of the characters established in the first games really disappointed me and kind of detached me from the storyline as well.

I really wish 2 would have been more of an extension of the original, and not a complete abandonment of it. Ah well...I guess that's the direction they felt they needed to go - - I realize some people like that style of game-play more.

I feel this way about the MP side as well. Count me in as one of the guys who loved Crysis Wars. Huge maps with tons of different vehicles and weapons. It was a lot of fun while it was active, and required a lot of skill to do well in. I think it was a good mix of the fast, twitchy Counter-Strike style of gameplay with the more realistic weapon handling of a game like BF.
February 9, 2012 6:42:55 PM

Stringjam said:
I prefer the original over Warhead or Crysis 2.

I agree with HEXiT in that not everybody isn't going to like the same thing.

I like games that let me set my own pace and choose a combat style, and I think the first game gives you the most flexibility in that approach. I think the story was "good." It didn't suck me in like FEAR or Metro2033, but it was certainly more interesting to me than anything from the BF or COD camp. It was good enough to keep me glued to the computer through most of my first play-through.

Crysis 2, when judged by itself and not compared against the original, is still a great looking, fun game......but, IMO, they totally ruined the mechanics that made the first one so good. Totally dumbed it down with the gutted suit functionality and lack of movement options. It feels sloppy, laggy, and not at all like CRYSIS. The fact that they also dismissed most of the characters established in the first games really disappointed me and kind of detached me from the storyline as well.

I really wish 2 would have been more of an extension of the original, and not a complete abandonment of it. Ah well...I guess that's the direction they felt they needed to go - - I realize some people like that style of game-play more.

I feel this way about the MP side as well. Count me in as one of the guys who loved Crysis Wars. Huge maps with tons of different vehicles and weapons. It was a lot of fun while it was active, and required a lot of skill to do well in. I think it was a good mix of the fast, twitchy Counter-Strike style of gameplay with the more realistic weapon handling of a game like BF.


I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I feel the reason Crytek abandoned the original gameplay formula was to make it appeal more to console players, who are accustomed to a different presentation and gameplay style of shooter.
February 9, 2012 7:12:30 PM

Stringjam said:
I prefer the original over Warhead or Crysis 2.

I agree with HEXiT in that not everybody isn't going to like the same thing.

Crysis 2, when judged by itself and not compared against the original, is still a great looking, fun game......but, IMO, they totally ruined the mechanics that made the first one so good. Totally dumbed it down with the gutted suit functionality and lack of movement options. It feels sloppy, laggy, and not at all like CRYSIS. The fact that they also dismissed most of the characters established in the first games really disappointed me and kind of detached me from the storyline as well.


See I agree with Hexit too. I also LIKED the changes to the suit functions in Crysis 2. I felt like by having 1 button-1press shortcuts to the functions, I was a more diverse on-the-fly player even though I had less suit abilities to activate.

I think that the multiplayer is quite good because it actually feels pretty balanced across various kit setups. That is saying a lot for a game that has invisibility and heat vision as baseline abilities.

Ultimately Crysis 1 would be my choice IF you could set independent 1press button shortcuts to each of the suit functions without dicking around with macros. Overall though I think Crysis 2 developed the franchise well. I liked the story in single player far better, and it was far better composed in almost every regard story-wise. None of the games really challenge me as a player aside from rare occasions and even then only with difficulty maxed. However, I felt like more of a badass in Crysis 2 and my gameplay felt like it would be far more entertaining to watch than my gameplay from Crysis 1 or Warhead. Overall I just really thought Crysis 2 got a bum rap because it is part of a series that purists are too nostalgic over. Crysis 1 taken on the merits of gameplay and storyline isn't even a great game. It's good at best in those regards.
February 9, 2012 9:54:00 PM

I liked Crysis. Crysis: Warhead had a much tighter storyline, but the campaign was a lot shorter.

Crysis 2 on it's own was a good game, but it sucked when compared to Crysis and Crysis: Warhead.
February 9, 2012 9:57:33 PM

Can we petition Bethesda to remake Crysis 2?

Perhaps then it will not be a game on railroad tracks. We can probably explore Manhattan. The other boroughs can be DLCs.
February 10, 2012 11:26:08 AM

jaguarskx said:
Can we petition Bethesda to remake Crysis 2?

Perhaps then it will not be a game on railroad tracks. We can probably explore Manhattan. The other boroughs can be DLCs.



Funny you mention railroad tracks, that is exactly how I was going to describe both Warhead and Crysis 2...rail shooter.
February 10, 2012 1:06:28 PM

Crysis 1 & Warhead
-Very poorly optimized, near impossible to run at Extreme
-IMO, better overall single player - open jungle warfare stealthing was very fitting for the concept

Crysis 2
-Optimized better
-More linear, generic single player
February 10, 2012 1:36:59 PM

I haven't played Crysis 2, but I like Warhead's story better. IMO, Crysis 1 was kinda lame in the beginning(till you figured out the nanosuit fully), very good in the middle, and boring towards the end(I felt like it was like a soap opera, they were just dragging it on and on).
February 10, 2012 1:42:46 PM

jk47 said:
Crysis 1 & Warhead
-Very poorly optimized, near impossible to run at Extreme
-IMO, better overall single player - open jungle warfare stealthing was very fitting for the concept

Crysis 2
-Optimized better
-More linear, generic single player


Actually Warhead was a fair bit easier on the GPU than original, but at this time they aren't the most demanding games.

Crysis 2 was optimized unless you try using DX11. Nvidia paid to have tesselation set to "*** you AMD" levels, by making the most detailed concrete blocks ever. I'm not joking about that, either.
February 10, 2012 1:43:39 PM

I definitely felt that the original Crysis was overall the best game out of the games listed above in my opinion.

Crysis not only has stellar graphics but the gameplay was superb. You had the suit to control while navigating a semi-open world environment. Other positives were the guns (type and bullet physics), vehicle control, and even the story. I personally liked the alien twist although I enjoyed killing the human AI more.

Warhead was like a decent expansion in to me. More of a good thing. Just an added bonus to the original crysis even though the original wasn't need if I remember correctly.

Crysis 2. Well, yeah, its crysis 2. Not to auto-bash this game or anything but its nothing like the original in respect to what was so good about the original. Of course you have the obvious negatives to list first, Graphics. Second the gameplay. For the most part to me the nano suit felt unnaturally to easy to use. Save game check point system was lame. Linear corridor style feel. Overall I was pleased that I waited for crysis 2 to hit the bargain bin and I will be sure to do the same with crysis 3 unless they turn it around.
February 10, 2012 3:44:21 PM

the orig crysis was my favorite one out of the series.
Graphically DX11 crysis 2 is very nice to look at, but the gameplay lacked something that the first one had. Warhead was good, but too short
February 10, 2012 4:51:31 PM

FlintIronStagg said:
the orig crysis was my favorite one out of the series.
Graphically DX11 crysis 2 is very nice to look at, but the gameplay lacked something that the first one had. Warhead was good, but too short


I often hear a lot of people say that Crysis 2 is gorgeous, and for some reason I really don't see it. I play it in DX11 with the High-Res pack and maxed out in Ultra, and to me the game reminds me of something last-gen. I mean, I'm sure the problem is with me - I'm just not seeing it right, I guess. But it looks...I have a hard time explaining how I see it. Do you know what Crysis looks like on Xbox 360/PS3? EA just released Crysis for download a few months ago on console. Anyway, that is what Crysis 2 looks like to me. I guess the best word would be "choppy". Or maybe that's a bad description - it just looks very video gameish and polygonal (as opposed to Crysis, which looked very clear). Where as Crysis (and even Crysis Warhead) reminds me of real life when I play it, Crysis 2 reminds me that I'm in a video game. I am not so much talking about object quality, or even texture quality, but rather an overall look and feel to the graphics engine that just doesn't seem as clear.

It just doesn't seem as clear - sorry I can't word it any better.
February 10, 2012 5:19:35 PM

I agree pcgamer81, I think the textures are muddier and 3d objects have less physics to them. In the Original Crysis I remember tires being blown out, trees being torn down, and heck even throwing explosive cans into the enemy and shooting them mid throw during gun fights. Those were some intense fun arse battles.
February 10, 2012 6:37:37 PM

PCgamer81 said:
I often hear a lot of people say that Crysis 2 is gorgeous, and for some reason I really don't see it. I play it in DX11 with the High-Res pack and maxed out in Ultra, and to me the game reminds me of something last-gen. I mean, I'm sure the problem is with me - I'm just not seeing it right, I guess. But it looks...I have a hard time explaining how I see it. Do you know what Crysis looks like on Xbox 360/PS3? EA just released Crysis for download a few months ago on console. Anyway, that is what Crysis 2 looks like to me. I guess the best word would be "choppy". Or maybe that's a bad description - it just looks very video gameish and polygonal (as opposed to Crysis, which looked very clear). Where as Crysis (and even Crysis Warhead) reminds me of real life when I play it, Crysis 2 reminds me that I'm in a video game. I am not so much talking about object quality, or even texture quality, but rather an overall look and feel to the graphics engine that just doesn't seem as clear.

It just doesn't seem as clear - sorry I can't word it any better.


Actually before you had a born-again moment, you made a rash of posts about how YOU thought Crysis 2 looked gorgeous. lol

Personally I think it's a good looking game. I like the look of the first Crysis better but I don't find it graphically superior. To me they are both about equal in appearance. Crysis 2 has some nice vistas that challenge the original when you happen to find a good spot and have the graphics cranked w/ dx11 and hi-res texture packs.
February 10, 2012 6:40:38 PM

Crysis 2 has impressive effects and lighting. The dx11 overlay is fairly impressive on the effects side but it will.never get rid of the cartoonish feel sometimes because it is essentially the same game as console.
The tesselation, hbao and other effects are what is impressive.
February 10, 2012 7:11:29 PM

Crysis is the best, followed by Warhead, followed a distant third by Crysis 2.

Yes, 2 was good technically and the gameplay is well honed. But I just can't stand - or understand - all this post apocalyptic nonsense. Just how many games have been infested by this wretched theme? Precisely what is the attraction? The only game where it ever worked in my opinion, is half life.

Crysis - like Far Cry - won hearts and minds because it was beautiful. It had a feel-good aspect about it because it made you gasp at its loveliness. Far Cry 2 fell because it was too depressing. Crysis 2 is the same imho. And it's why I can't bear to make it past the first stages of Fallout, despite loving Oblivion.

Games these days seem obsessed with being downers. The world is depressing enough as it is. We need stuff that fires the imagination and lifts the spirits, please.
February 11, 2012 1:38:13 AM

casualcolors said:
Actually before you had a born-again moment, you made a rash of posts about how YOU thought Crysis 2 looked gorgeous. lol

Personally I think it's a good looking game. I like the look of the first Crysis better but I don't find it graphically superior. To me they are both about equal in appearance. Crysis 2 has some nice vistas that challenge the original when you happen to find a good spot and have the graphics cranked w/ dx11 and hi-res texture packs.


You're right.

However, I believe I only bragged on Crysis 2 for like the first day I had it. And it's not because I had a change of heart - it's because after I got Crysis 2, I made the mistake of going back and playing Crysis 1 again.

Crysis 2 is an excellent shooter, and that includes graphics - when judged by shooter standards. Just not when judged against Crysis/Warhead standards. When compared against those two games, in my opinion it falls short.

You have a good memory.
February 11, 2012 1:55:49 AM

Optimally (for me at least) they will release a more open-world game but retain the suit functions from Crysis 2. For me, that will probably make for the most fun game experience if Crysis 3 comes to be. Something about the clunkiness of the suit in Crysis and Warhead that, I hate to say it but it almost ruins the gameplay for me a bit. Just feels like you're being held back a bit from your own personal potential as far as on the fly changes go.

Then again, I also grew up playing games when FPS's were much faster paced than they typically are now, so that probably contributes to some of my frustration with the slower style of Crysis's suit functionality.

For lack of a better way to describe it, the suit functions feel more natural to me in Crysis 2 and I feel like I can use the suit more the way that I actually would want to if such a thing existed. I wouldn't want to be dicking around in submenus or doing button double taps lol.
February 11, 2012 2:19:32 AM

Thats what i liked more about the first Crysis was the pace of gameplay. It was refreshing compared to crysis of duty: squid in.new York
February 11, 2012 2:31:20 AM

I thought the middle-mouse suit switching in the first game was perfect. Once you get good at it you can do it without even thinking....almost like a reflex.

Crysis was instantly responsive to movement control. It was like driving a human sports car.....yeah, it may have taken a little practice to get used to shifting gears, but once you got it down you could do stuff that isn't even possible in Crysis 2.

That's why it's so hard for me to play Crysis2....they turned the character into a slug. There is no "speed" mode, which is one of the most tactical of all the suit options you had available in the first game. You press "jump" and there is that awful delay (thanks to their idea to "integrate" the power mode by during button-press duration). And the biggest sin was removing advanced movement controls like lean and prone. Any FPS that really wants to make stealth part of the gameplay should have these movement characteristics.
February 11, 2012 2:54:23 AM

Prone had to go for Crysis 2 because they were trying to build a legit multiplayer aspect of the game. Couldn't have had prone position in a game that already had stealth, or there would have been non-stop camping beyond anything you see in a call of duty game.

Really hated the middle mouse system. Utilizing the extra button push was fine but the arbitrary mouse movement afterward... lol thank god they didn't try to turn Crysis 1 into a multiplayer game, and Wars was to be frank a flop. That control setup is just way too clunky. Could have had such a better experience if they'd just made all of the suit functions hotkeyable without that even more horrendous double tap crap lol.


On an unrelated note, Stringjam: you recommended Shift 2 to me back when I was looking to get back into racing games. Enjoyed it a lot, and ended up grabbing Dirt 2 and Dirt 3 which are both an absolute blast. I'm sure you've played them both, but if not, they are really good with wheel+pedals if you set the wheel light. Lots of high degree whips.
February 11, 2012 3:36:57 AM

I am not sure about Crysis 1, but I know for a fact Warhead allows for suit shortcuts. You just have to enable them in the options menu.
February 11, 2012 4:06:33 AM

casualcolors said:


On an unrelated note, Stringjam: you recommended Shift 2 to me back when I was looking to get back into racing games. Enjoyed it a lot, and ended up grabbing Dirt 2 and Dirt 3 which are both an absolute blast. I'm sure you've played them both, but if not, they are really good with wheel+pedals if you set the wheel light. Lots of high degree whips.


It's funny you mention that......I've had Dirt3 in my STEAM account forever and just started playing it a couple of weeks ago. I haven't even started the career yet....just playing time trials and stuff to learn the game, but it is a lot of fun, and the game looks really nice. The Michigan courses are just beautiful. I didn't think I would like the Gymkhana stuff at first, but now that I'm more used to the mechanics I really like it. I seriously need to get a wheel.....I love racing games like this so I have no excuse not to get one.
February 11, 2012 4:51:03 AM

Stringjam said:
It's funny you mention that......I've had Dirt3 in my STEAM account forever and just started playing it a couple of weeks ago. I haven't even started the career yet....just playing time trials and stuff to learn the game, but it is a lot of fun, and the game looks really nice. The Michigan courses are just beautiful. I didn't think I would like the Gymkhana stuff at first, but now that I'm more used to the mechanics I really like it. I seriously need to get a wheel.....I love racing games like this so I have no excuse not to get one.


I have Dirt 3 as well - mine came free with one of my 6970s.

I played it for a while but quickly lost interest when I discovered that the game was not going to allow me 100% completion unless I paid them (DLC).

That really irks me, as it seems that half of Dirt 3 is DLC - and it wasn't offered after the game had been out a while, oh no. It was there from day one - almost as if to say, "Thanks for purchasing. If you want the rest of the game, pay us more."

I am glad I got it for free. If I would have actually bought it, I would be even more livid.

DLC is the biggest rip-off money making middle finger to the gamer since arcade Gauntlet.
February 11, 2012 1:46:12 PM

PCgamer81 said:
I have Dirt 3 as well - mine came free with one of my 6970s.

I played it for a while but quickly lost interest when I discovered that the game was not going to allow me 100% completion unless I paid them (DLC).

That really irks me, as it seems that half of Dirt 3 is DLC - and it wasn't offered after the game had been out a while, oh no. It was there from day one - almost as if to say, "Thanks for purchasing. If you want the rest of the game, pay us more."

I am glad I got it for free. If I would have actually bought it, I would be even more livid.

DLC is the biggest rip-off money making middle finger to the gamer since arcade Gauntlet.


The only DLC I would buy is the monte carlo tracks. The dlc cars that were available from day 1, ehhhhhhhh who cares about them imo. For me though the fun isn't in the completion of the game as far as Dirt 3 is concerned. I just really love driving the courses. It's a blast.
February 11, 2012 5:44:55 PM

DiRT 3 is decent, but honestly Dirt 1 and 2 were better. Except the Gymkhana. That's pretty fun. My biggest problem with it is a lack of progress as far as cars go. It was similar in Dirt 2, but at least you had to buy them. Dirt 3 it's just "oh, you played enough to level up, here's new cars/sponsors!". I wish they'd go back to how GRID did it.
February 11, 2012 5:57:41 PM

Dirt 2 is a blast as well. I grabbed it when it was on sale for 5 bucks on steam and it's equally as fun as Dirt 3 for me. I really like the chinese trailblazer courses and the malaysian rally courses. Sorry for derailing the thread btw.
February 12, 2012 12:07:50 AM

imho crysis and warhead are amazing games, they look amazing have an amazing story and allow you to play the game how you want.

Crysis 2 imho does not deserve to bare the name crysis. Huge deviation in story, huge deviation in gameplay from suite mechanics to level design, huge deviation (step backwards) visually. Could have been Halo 4 really lol
February 12, 2012 12:19:06 AM

nocturnal7x said:
imho crysis and warhead are amazing games, they look amazing have an amazing story and allow you to play the game how you want.

Crysis 2 imho does not deserve to bare the name crysis. Huge deviation in story, huge deviation in gameplay from suite mechanics to level design, huge deviation (step backwards) visually. Could have been Halo 4 really lol


To be fair, Crysis 1 and Crysis Warhead are completely linear games that aside from walking around and playing with mods, basically force you to play the way they want with options as to how you approach each fight. Pretty much exactly the same as Crysis 2 lol. It's not like you can choose how to progress through Crysis 1 for instance.
February 12, 2012 1:20:18 AM

casualcolors said:
To be fair, Crysis 1 and Crysis Warhead are completely linear games that aside from walking around and playing with mods, basically force you to play the way they want with options as to how you approach each fight. Pretty much exactly the same as Crysis 2 lol. It's not like you can choose how to progress through Crysis 1 for instance.


I can agree with this.

Far Cry 2 IMO is really the only non-linear shooter from Crytek.

Crysis allowed for one to choose how to approach - but the destination was always predetermined as was the order.

Crysis Warhead was especially linear, IMO. However, I think it worked for Warhead - made it more like Crysis extreme.

Crysis 2 allowed for being sneaky and approaching your own way, but for me the issue was always the look of Crysis 2, as well as the presentation.

I much prefer a real jungle to a concrete jungle. To me, it just doesn't feel or look like Crysis.
February 12, 2012 1:36:45 AM

Farcry 2 was not made by crytek. It was developed by ubisoft in order to cash in on the franchise.
February 12, 2012 2:46:30 AM

PCgamer81 said:
I can agree with this.

Far Cry 2 IMO is really the only non-linear shooter from Crytek.

Crysis allowed for one to choose how to approach - but the destination was always predetermined as was the order.

Crysis Warhead was especially linear, IMO. However, I think it worked for Warhead - made it more like Crysis extreme.

Crysis 2 allowed for being sneaky and approaching your own way, but for me the issue was always the look of Crysis 2, as well as the presentation.

I much prefer a real jungle to a concrete jungle. To me, it just doesn't feel or look like Crysis.


I can agree with this. I think we would all like a more refined jungle combat game in the future.

To me, Farcry 3 looks promising in that regard. So long as it is done in a better vein than the 2nd game.
February 12, 2012 5:48:01 AM

FlintIronStagg said:
Farcry 2 was not made by crytek. It was developed by ubisoft in order to cash in on the franchise.


My mistake.
February 12, 2012 5:52:55 AM

casualcolors said:
I can agree with this. I think we would all like a more refined jungle combat game in the future.

To me, Farcry 3 looks promising in that regard. So long as it is done in a better vein than the 2nd game.


Far Cry 3 is looking very good. I can't wait.

I liked the first Far Cry, although I never did finish it. The Trigens weren't as much fun as the humans. They were very scary and very hard, though.

Far Cry 2 I played a while, although I didn't beat it. I got it on steam for like 5 dollars and still play a little from time to time. It got an unfair rap IMO. I like the look of the game and I think it's fun.
February 12, 2012 10:04:17 AM

I LOVED FarCry2, despite its shortcomings (of which it had many).

They really attempted to provide a truly first-person immersive feel to the game. All the little stuff.....like seeing your hand open doors, as opposed to doors just magically flying open when you push the interact key....actually climbing into the vehicles instead of just materializing inside the cab, no unnatural zooming effect when you would ironsight a weapon, and no crosshairs!!!

Actually pulling out and stabbing yourself with the med-kit syringes, or even having to dig a bullet out in battle if you let it go too far....very cool.


I also totally dug the story. Yay! A story for grown-ups! No epic end-of-the-world self-importance to it, no flopping tits to entertain the 14-year-old virgins, and no nuclear explosions. I thought the conflict was very interesting.

Also had some fantastic AI. Wounded NPC's would crawl to cover and wait for you to come looking for them (I don't know how many times I got shot in the back because of this). Other NPC's would drag or carry the wounded from the area.


What hurt this game was the repetitiveness of the "quests." The second half of the game I felt was far more exciting than the first, which is too bad, as it seems like everybody who doesn't like the game never even gets that far.


So I find myself wondering how FarCry 3 is going to play, as I can't really tell from the available videos. What has me worried is that there appears to be "takedown" keys and combo maneuvers, which leads me to believe it's going to have a lot of that scripted crap where you just hit keys and watch all the action take place (ala BF3....gag). Also noticed that cross-hairs are back, which means they probably cut back on the realism and perhaps have done some other consolizing.

I'm going to buy it....I have to - - nobody else is making open-world FPS's right now.
February 12, 2012 10:42:13 AM

Stringjam said:
...nobody else is making open-world FPS's right now.


*cough* GSC *cough*
February 12, 2012 10:44:06 AM

PCgamer81 said:
*cough* GSC* *cough*


That still seems to be on shaky ground.....nobody would love to see STALKER 2 more than I would, but it's kind of one of those "I"ll believe it when I see it" things at this point. Hopefully the STALKER team will find the funding they need to get there.
February 12, 2012 11:38:53 AM

Stringjam said:
That still seems to be on shaky ground.....nobody would love to see STALKER 2 more than I would, but it's kind of one of those "I"ll believe it when I see it" things at this point. Hopefully the STALKER team will find the funding they need to get there.

most of the stalker team defected to 4A games to make the metro series....
February 12, 2012 12:10:50 PM

On December 23, 2011 GSC Game World announced they would be continuing development of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2, despite an earlier announcement pointing to its cancellation - quote from wikipedia

I do agree that it is nowhere near a sure thing, but considering how well the past iterations have sold (as well as the fact that it is widely anticipated), the GSC team would have to quit loving money before we can expect a real cancellation.

And even if GSC gives up on it for whatever reason, it's not out of the realm of possibility (in fact, I'd say it's likely) that a large publisher would purchase the license to try and capitalize on the brand name.
March 27, 2012 8:04:04 PM

in crysis 2 u have to buy the nanosuit modules and once u get stealth enhance and nano recharge , the game ends , i mean just sneek past enemies is no fun , for ppl like me who want gud gfx just used that whereas in crysis enter in a warzone kill or die , not many times u r able to sneek through , though just use it as a tactic.
I think crysis 2 is more coloured rather than better looking , if crysis 2 would have followed 1's colour scheme for aliens , then crysis original absolute winner , but for me crysis is still the best.
March 27, 2012 8:25:59 PM

crysis has 1 flaw though not in c2 that i think crysis was unended , i mean they didnt showed the death of other aliens , in the end finish off alien warhip and thats it ? And they never showed how was prophet saved which we can be said a flaw of c2 also , did nomad and pyscho die ? Or were they on a vacation or were they on pension ;P
March 27, 2012 8:34:49 PM

helpy said:
crysis has 1 flaw though not in c2 that i think crysis was unended , i mean they didnt showed the death of other aliens , in the end finish off alien warhip and thats it ? And they never showed how was prophet saved which we can be said a flaw of c2 also , did nomad and pyscho die ? Or were they on a vacation or were they on pension ;P



Thats the great thing about the beginning of crysis 2 (well, and the end...) Is that we do learn that everyone who wears the suit goes crazy and dies...

Now the sarcasm I have used here, the sarcasm is fitting because the butchering of the crysis story with what crytek and EA called "crysis 2" (not a sequel imo, just a game using the good name of crysis to sell a POS) was the greatest atrocity committed against PC gaming and gaming in general possibly in the history of gaming.

Not only did Crytek murder our beloved characters from crysis, but they completely discontinued the story and wrote some new cliche cheesy bull ******* *** about some crazy asshole scientist and how the suits made people go nuts. Total BS, a complete hack job...AND on top of these atrocities they release a POS console port claiming to the the sequel to crysis.

Since I have tried whenever I speak about crysis to make a point of saying crysis 2 is not a crysis game. It only has the name, which it soiled with failure...
March 27, 2012 9:31:30 PM

As much as I hate EA's butchering of gaming franchises, Crysis 2 is still a Crysis game as much as Mass Effect 3 is still a Mass Effect game.

Yeah, they sucked balls compared to the originals and are not what the series' deserved, but that's what we got.

Still, I hope devs can warp out of the EA black hole in the future to avoid getting devoured and destroyed.
March 27, 2012 10:50:57 PM

The fanboys are strong in this thread. The thing that I never really understood is how people suggest that Crysis 2 somehow butchered the Crysis storyline. The story was already incredibly weak (Warhead was the only compelling aspect of Ling Shan imo). The characters were cool, but I never had the sense that they were abandoned since I was never particularly attached to Nomad, Psycho or Prophet in the first place. They're all awesome, but I thought Alcatraz was way more visceral. Alcatraz has more in common with the user, since the nanosuit is foreign to him. It was also a clever way to re-introduce Prophet since you had to have that feeling that his character was destined to die ever since halfway through the first game.

All of that said, it seems like they've set up a scenario where you could get Nomad, Psycho and Prophet (through Alcatraz) in the next Crysis game.

The suits making people go nuts and crap was alluded to in the very first Crysis game. Prophet comes back from the island having violent hallucinations and delusions and it is all laid out for you.

The weakest point in Crysis 2 was the ending. Compared to the first two games though, it's a well developed end. The ending to Crysis 1 and Warhead weren't good at all. They were horribly abrupt (and particularly the bosses were pathetic).

All of that said, I think Warhead was the prettiest of the three games. Crysis 2 was actually the most fleshed out story element. Crysis 1 is the weakest of the series but it gets a lot of love for being the innovator.
March 28, 2012 2:17:13 AM

casualcolors said:
The fanboys are strong in this thread. The thing that I never really understood is how people suggest that Crysis 2 somehow butchered the Crysis storyline.

The suits making people go nuts and crap was alluded to in the very first Crysis game. Prophet comes back from the island having violent hallucinations and delusions and it is all laid out for you.




Killing off nomad, psycho and prophet are what pissed me off. The suit making people crazy also pissed me off. As far as being foreshadowed in the first game, ill probably look out for that when/if I replay it as I don't remember that at all.

Either way Crysis 2 was a bad port, and the enemies are completely different...very strange. It felt like halo to me, not crysis.

Also, when I said the first game let me play the way I wanted, I meant the world was more open, so I could attack from different sides, at different speeds. Story was linear, but gameplay was much less linear. Also had stuff to explore if I wanted too :D 
March 28, 2012 2:34:20 AM

The first game was completely on tracks. You had the same diversity of options as far as how to approach any given situation as you had in Crysis 2. You can come from the left, the right or the middle.

I like the aliens more in Warhead and the first Crysis, but I enjoy being able to cut their throats in the second. I guess if I had to weigh the two, I preferred my interaction with them in the second much more than I cared about their particular art style.

Nomad and Psycho weren't killed off. Game makes no mention of them as it's solely about Prophet going to New York (and finding Alcatraz). So far as I can tell, Crysis 2 feels like it is deliberately setting the stage for a trilogy with the way that it expanded the story of nanosuit 2.0 and Prophet specifically.

The suit making people go crazy wasn't just foreshadowed, it is explicitly mentioned (while you're on the carrier).

It is true that you could explore the world more in Crysis, but to me that wasn't what made it cool. The world exploring was pretty much masturbatory and unless you were a modder, the novelty of it wore off in about an hour. Personally, I thought the height of the first Crysis game was investigating the interior of the alien spire. It had the same great feeling as the similar scenes from the movie Fire in the Sky. That whole scenario seems to be overlooked by people who instead obsess over the first half of the game (which is simultaneously boring as hell and has an awful patchwork story line that not only insults any potential branding of the Crysis name, it's pretty insulting to sci-fi games as a whole).
March 28, 2012 2:52:56 AM

casualcolors said:
Personally, I thought the height of the first Crysis game was investigating the interior of the alien spire. It had the same great feeling as the similar scenes from the movie Fire in the Sky. That whole scenario seems to be overlooked by people who instead obsess over the first half of the game......



I knew I would eventually find somebody else who liked that stage!!!!

I thought the journey through the spire was fascinating in every regard......the aliens, the artistic direction, the sound design - all superb. I have no idea why everybody else hates the zero-g stage so much.
    • 1 / 12
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!