They screwed the pooch on Crysis 2, not looking forward to another linear shooter, I actually enjoyed the world of Crysis and Farcry having them neutered for consoles doesn't really make for a good game.
Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy wrote:He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
Crysis was awesome, would have been even greater if they had coop. Their multiplayer spinoff was cool too, although not totally developed.
Then Crysis 2 happened.
"What isn't remembered never happened. Memory is merely a record. You just need to re-write that record."
"Ummm, if I die... It's gonna be your fault" -Mr.Blip
"J2 I am disappoint."
Crysis and Crysis: Warhead were great games. They were kinda linear, but the huge maps made the game feel open. Crysis 2 was way to linear. The multiplayer was good for a week or two, but it got dull very quickly. Crysis multiplayer was ok too, but it's very under-populated.
nightmare 101 wrote:I appreciate you brigbar, for being a sexy young lass. Every time I see one of your posts, it brings a smile to my face. My aches for threads like this, and your feminine sensuality has tempered the bounds of what the immature forum truly means to us. In days long since passed, it was the breeding ground of hateful spite. Truly, this fountain of effeminate care and love called Brigbar96 has changed everything for us. We will drop our arms and hug one another. Hate is the past, and it's only made possible by our one and only..
NONE of the Crysis games were outstanding or memorable to begin with. That goes for Farcry too.
The engines they developed while technically superior, were obtuse and alien to the computers they were supposed to be run on.
Not to mention that they were extremely unprolific as very few games dared to use the engine.
It was the engines that made farcry and Crysis memorable.
You are telling me that you found neither farcry or Crysis enjoyable in the least?
The point is that both those engines pushed the limit of where gaming could go. I honestly consider both those games better than most "shooter on rails" that are being produced these days.
"What isn't remembered never happened. Memory is merely a record. You just need to re-write that record."
"Ummm, if I die... It's gonna be your fault" -Mr.Blip
"J2 I am disappoint."
a linear shooter is not an on rails shooter, for fucks sake.
And seriously, what's with the hate for linear shooters here? Linearity allows the developer to set up large and spectacular set pieces. Crysis was simply meh, Crysis 2 was a more restrained game, and was all the better for it. it didn't lack focus like the first game did.
"The flow if time is always cruel. Its speed seems different for each person, but no one can change it..."
if I replay Crysis I have a new experience based on how I go through the map, Crysis 2 is the same shit with SLIGHTLY different paths. There is also the degradation in the controls from Crysis to Crysis 2.
Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy wrote:He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
The first Crysis game is pretty fun and wholly conducive to how you choose to play it and proceed through the map- it didn't "lack focus," it encouraged the player to experiment with its large environments. Later on, however, it became quite unfortunately bogged down in the linear level design that would apparently go on to dominate the second game. I think Warhead was supposed to be better about that.
Far Cry is still sweet, too, although Just Cause 2 has kind of stolen its entire purpose for being at this juncture.