Report: Crysis 2 Leaked

[DoctorNarrative]

I think we have to admit that consoles by their very nature are more mainstream though. There's not really a huge difference between those terms to a lot of people.

This is true, I just think there is an important distinction. A lot of console gamers I know are annoyed at how mainstream the industry is getting. I know people who were upset about Final Fantasy XIII and Fable 3 being much simpler than their predecessors for instance, and I know a LOT of console gamers who pine for the old days of the NES and SNES, where games were rather unforgiving.

Looking at PC exclusives like most MMOs and even games like Supreme Commander 2 or Diablo 3 we can see that streamlining and mainstreaming are not console-only concepts. Even Civ5 is pretty simplified compared to Civ4, and "streamlined" was a buzzword in Civ5 previews.

It's also false to assume that the changes in Crysis 2 had nothing to do with console hardware. For instance, it's a known fact that maps have been made smaller in some games due to the RAM limitations of consoles. I'm not saying that's the case in Crysis 2, but you can't rule out the possibility.

Yeah, they denied there were technical reasons behind the New York switch but it would not surprise me if they were fibbing.

 

[JDR13]

Looking at PC exclusives like most MMOs and even games like Supreme Commander 2 or Diablo 3 we can see that streamlining and mainstreaming are not console-only concepts. Even Civ5 is pretty simplified compared to Civ4, and "streamlined" was a buzzword in Civ5 previews.

Yeah, that's one of the reasons I don't like MMOs actually. Streamlining in general is fairly new to PC gaming compared to consoles though. It's always existed on game systems due to necessity, i.e. gamepads with only a few buttons, but we didn't really start seeing it in PC games until well into the 2000s.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

Yeah, that's one of the reasons I don't like MMOs actually. Streamlining in general is fairly new to PC gaming compared to consoles though. It's always existed on game systems due to necessity, i.e. gamepads with only a few buttons, but we didn't really start seeing it in PC games until well into the 2000s.

Well... Diablo was 1996

 

[JDR13]

Well… Diablo was 1996

Not every game can be a System Shock or Daggerfall.

 

[Thrasher]

i don't think I'd call DIablo "streamlined" per se. It's more of a different beast, focussed on realtime controls rather than. roleplaying.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

i don't think I'd call DIablo "streamlined" per se. It's more of a different beast, focussed on realtime controls rather than. roleplaying.

It's extremely simple gameplay, focused on an addicting impulse just like WoW. Click things, rewards pop out. The entire gameplay is just click-click-click on enemies and colored goodies pop out to reward you. There is no strategy, just run away when your health is low and click the potion button. WoW followed up on these concepts with an even greater emphasis on the addictive nature to keep people playing. Diablo 3 will do the same thing, only even more streamlined now from what I have read.

Crysis 2 is a ten times more complex game than Diablo, so I don't know where you guys draw the line here. My point is that there was and will always be games that try and cater to the mainstream by being simple and fun to play rather than deep and complex. That goes for PC games and console games alike. Just today I read about Ninja Gaiden 3, a console exclusive series, and how they are making it more "accessible" by making it more linear, easier and more cinematic. It happens to console gamers too.

 

[Thrasher]

But let's take the word "streamlined" and analyze it. It describes a process where something more complex is made easier to use, right? In this context it should be applied to one game vs another. I don't see Diablo being a simpler to use version of any other game before it. No other RPG had realtime combat that I am aware of. It was a new hybrid. But please correct me if I am not remembering an older game similar to Diablo.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

But let's take the word "streamlined" and analyze it. It describes a process where something more complex is made easier to use, right? In this context it should be applied to one game vs another. I don't see Diablo being a simpler to use version of any other game before it. No other RPG had realtime combat that I am aware of. It was a new hybrid. But please correct me if I am not remembering an older game similar to Diablo.

I don't really grant your premise that you have to have two games to directly compare. I guess I am talking more in broader concepts... making games, in general, easier and less complex in order to sell more copies. It's not a platform-specific idea or process, it happens all over the place. It happened 20 years ago, it's happening now, it will happen 20 years from now.

 

[JDR13]

Diablo was a simple game, and no, streamlining is not platform specific.

Having said that, I don't think anyone is going to argue that console games in general haven't been more mainstream than PC games over the years. The gap is closing yes, but there's still a gap.

 

[DArtagnan]

Diablo was a modern multiplayer version of the Rogue-like concept.

It was accessible and had strong mainstream appeal - but if you look at the sequel, I don't think it's part of the modern streamlining mindset.

I think they just wanted to prove the concept would work in multiplayer with strong aesthetics - and boy did they ever. The game was quite hard if you compare it to a casual game - and I certainly got slaughtered quite a bit, even on normal difficulty. At least until I learned the ropes - and I'm no casual gamer.

No, I don't think Diablo was really a "streamlined" game - and the sequel added considerable complexity.

The Diablo series is deceptively simple - because it comes off like a simplistic hack/slash game to the uninformed. Going deeper, it's actually a very challenging game with interesting mechanics. Most of the challenge comes from proper loot configuration and the right tactical approach to specific monsters.

The sequel added a ton of character build complexity. Having a proper build was absolutely essential for survival on Nightmare and Hell difficulty levels.

I think many play through it once on normal, without realising the design in terms of difficulty levels. It's not a game that's about completing the story, but about building your character and gathering loot for that build. Normal level hardly gets you started - and serves only as an introduction to the real meat of the game - which is where it becomes challenging and the interesting loot and build diversity comes into play.

Anyone who has tried to tackle Diablo 1 or 2 on harder difficulty modes - knows that the game was neither simplistic nor easy.

I certainly don't think so

 

[DoctorNarrative]

I think many play through it once on normal, without realising the design in terms of difficulty levels. It's not a game that's about completing the story, but about building your character and gathering loot for that build. Normal level hardly gets you started - and serves only as an introduction to the real meat of the game - which is where it becomes challenging and the interesting loot and build diversity comes into play.

Anyone who has tried to tackle Diablo 1 or 2 on harder difficulty modes - knows that the game was neither simplistic nor easy.

Most people do not play games on hard. Also, if you play Crysis 2 on hard it will certainly require more effort and give you more challenge, but does that make it no longer a streamlined game?

I actually agree with JD that streamlining is more prevalent today, but my point is that developers will ALWAYS try to increase their audience, and making games easier to play is a very effective way to do that a lot of the time. Compared to RPGs of the time Diablo is extremely easy to play, I can't see an argument against that no matter what the hardest difficulty levels might require of you. It's easy to play and simple to understand because that expanded the audience, just like the reward system attracted an audience. That is still what Blizz are doing today with WoW, and even with Starcraft 2 which on default settings is very simple and easy to play.

Crysis, like Morrowind and countless other examples, required the player to explore and generate goals him/herself. You would come across a massive enemy camp and you had to figure out how you wanted to tackle it, with no guidance from the game. When you are trying to sell more copies and appeal to a mainstream market this is seen as a bad thing, because the average joe gets frustrated and lost at these points. How many times have I read "Crysis is pretty but so boring"... that game is ANYTHING but boring, but people who can't create a plan and fun for themselves just wait for Crysis to tell them what to do, which it never does.

Crysis 2 thus has thinner corridors, a constant blue marker telling you where to go and a suit that barks options at you at every opportunity. That's streamlining in a nutshell, Crysis 2 is a perfect example of it, I agree. My point was just that this kind of audience pandering has existed forever in games, and always will. I guess I'm trying to say pick your battles because it isn't getting any better. Crysis 2, despite all that simplification, is still a 10 times deeper game than Call of Duty: Black Ops or something like that. I take my small victories when I can get them now-a-days.

 

[DArtagnan]

Most people do not play games on hard. Also, if you play Crysis 2 on hard it will certainly require more effort and give you more challenge, but does that make it no longer a streamlined game?

Did you miss the point I made about the inherent design of Diablo? It's not a game that's meant to be completed once and then you're done with it. The entire design philosophy behind rogue-like games is that they can go on forever - and that the levels are randomly generated to facilitate that. The difficulty levels are not meant to be about where you start the game, because you can't even pick the harder levels to begin with. It's a deliberate challenge flow inherent in the design.

The games are about your character - and it's his progression that's the focus. The story is pretty incidental to the whole gameplay structure. This hails directly from Rogue and its ilk.

Naturally, the standard RPG fan will approach it like any other game - and he will lament that it's not much of an RPG. Many story fans will be extremely disappointed - and will probably stop after completing it once - if they even get there.

That's not because they're "wrong" somehow, or anything like that.

It's probably just that character building and loot whoring isn't for them, and that's fair enough.

I actually agree with JD that streamlining is more prevalent today, but my point is that developers will ALWAYS try to increase their audience, and making games easier to play is a very effective way to do that a lot of the time. Compared to RPGs of the time Diablo is extremely easy to play, I can't see an argument against that no matter what the hardest difficulty levels might require of you. It's easy to play and simple to understand because that expanded the audience, just like the reward system attracted an audience. That is still what Blizz are doing today with WoW, and even with Starcraft 2 which on default settings is very simple and easy to play.

Not to be harsh, but you seem to really have no idea about the challenge of Diablo. I'm an enthusiast gamer if there ever was one - and I certainly had a challenging and fun time playing it multiplayer - even on normal level. I think we got killed by The Butcher (very early boss) at least 10 times before we got him down.

It reminds me of Demon's Souls in that way.

Of course, the actual mechanics start off very easy - just like Blizzard always do it, and they slowly introduce complexity. You're right that they always strived for that, but Diablo is nothing like modern day WoW - for example. WoW is absolutely zero challenge at this point, until you get to the very end. Vanilla WoW was quite challenging once you got to the first instances and especially towards the later levels.

You talk about what developers always do, like it's some kind of rule. It's sadly true that most AAA developers are doing that today - but there are many ways to go about it.

Crysis, like Morrowind and countless other examples, required the player to explore and generate goals him/herself. You would come across a massive enemy camp and you had to figure out how you wanted to tackle it, with no guidance from the game. When you are trying to sell more copies and appeal to a mainstream market this is seen as a bad thing, because the average joe gets frustrated and lost at these points. How many times have I read "Crysis is pretty but so boring"… that game is ANYTHING but boring, but people who can't create a plan and fun for themselves just wait for Crysis to tell them what to do, which it never does.

I completed Crysis on the hardest difficulty level without much difficulty. I'm not sure I would equate "linearity" with "streamlining" in the same way as reducing difficulty or challenge - and I think Crysis 2 is more about making the content easily digestible than necessarily easier to overcome. A different kind of streamlining, if you will.

Crysis 2 thus has thinner corridors, a constant blue marker telling you where to go and a suit that barks options at you at every opportunity. That's streamlining in a nutshell, Crysis 2 is a perfect example of it, I agree. My point was just that this kind of audience pandering has existed forever in games, and always will. I guess I'm trying to say pick your battles because it isn't getting any better. Crysis 2, despite all that simplification, is still a 10 times deeper game than Call of Duty: Black Ops or something like that. I take my small victories when I can get them now-a-days.

All I can say is that we're coming at this from completely different angles.

What we're witnessing today as opposed to, say, before Doom (this is where it really began - in my mind) is ALL about maximising profit. It's not about making the game accessible for the sake of the game, but for the sake of generating profit.

While some degree of streamlining can be said to have existed across all genres at all times - the motivation and result is COMPLETELY different today.

In the past, the audience was mostly enthusiast "nerdy" gamers - and if you wanted to sell your game - you'd better make the actual game better. It was about figuring out how to appeal to those who loved games as a passionate hobby.

Today, it's about appealing to the masses. The masses who play games just to pass the time, instead of watching a movie or scratching their ass. The largest audience no longer consists of passionate gamers - but casual gamers.

So, naturally the market is flooded with developers/publishers out to make a buck - before they even think about creating a piece of art - or a genuinely evolutionary game.

If you can't see the distinction - then I have no idea how to meet you in this.

Pick my battles? I battle when I care about the outcome - and I don't pick battles for my own comfort.

I look back at gaming as it used to be, and I compare it with the general trend today.

I'm sure it can come off as rose-colored glasses nostalgia to those who don't really see the problem - and those who think I should just accept what happens lying down.

It's not about thinking I can really make a difference - but simply about having a voice and articulating my sadness and issues in a way that might be picked up by someone and so the message is spread.

Looking at Dragon Age 2 as a recent example, there are still lessons to be learned by the developers, even with their acknowledgment - and if our criticism can help make the message clear - I'll consider it well worth my time.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

In my opinion, both Action-RPGs by Blizzard jut spawned what we know as "modern streamlining" !

 

[DoctorNarrative]

I suppose I deserved this long reply since I rambled on. I'll try to hit the key points.

Did you miss the point I made about the inherent design of Diablo? It's not a game that's meant to be completed once and then you're done with it. The entire design philosophy behind rogue-like games is that they can go on forever - and that the levels are randomly generated to facilitate that. The difficulty levels are not meant to be about where you start the game, because you can't even pick the harder levels to begin with. It's a deliberate challenge flow inherent in the design.

You seem to be quite the Diablo enthusiast, which is cool. I'm not, I played both games until the end and then uninstalled them. So, in that regard maybe we are coming at this from very different angles. In any event, my Diablo experience was clicking things until they died and then they pooped out colored loot. I was never challenged and never discovered any deeper mechanics.

In any case Diablo is just an example, if you don't agree with it there are many others. The core point remains the same, that developers and publishers have been expanding the gaming audience for decades now, on every platform, and it's not a console thing. You seem to make pretty much the same point below, so other than disagreeing about Diablo being an example I don't know what else there is to argue about on this point.

I completed Crysis on the hardest difficulty level without much difficulty. I'm not sure I would equate "linearity" with "streamlining" in the same way as reducing difficulty or challenge - and I think Crysis 2 is more about making the content easily digestible than necessarily easier to overcome. A different kind of streamlining, if you will.

That's not a different kind of streamlining, that's one of the core tenets of streamlining. I didn't mean to say Crysis was a hard game, I said it required more player effort and thought. One of the most crucial aspects of streamlining is removing player effort and thought, focusing on the "fun" parts. This ignores the "hardcore" crowd who enjoy overcoming challenges and thinking through a complex or open part of a game.

All I can say is that we're coming at this from completely different angles.

What we're witnessing today as opposed to, say, before Doom (this is where it really began - in my mind) is ALL about maximising profit. It's not about making the game accessible for the sake of the game, but for the sake of generating profit.

Of course, but games have always been about profit. Even when they were made for 100,000 nerds instead of 10,000,000 mainstream gamers they were still about profit. As you say below, the only difference is who you are trying to make that profit from.

While some degree of streamlining can be said to have existed across all genres at all times - the motivation and result is COMPLETELY different today.

In the past, the audience was mostly enthusiast "nerdy" gamers - and if you wanted to sell your game - you'd better make the actual game better. It was about figuring out how to appeal to those who loved games as a passionate hobby.

Today, it's about appealing to the masses. The masses who play games just to pass the time, instead of watching a movie or scratching their ass. The largest audience no longer consists of passionate gamers - but casual gamers.

So, naturally the market is flooded with developers/publishers out to make a buck - before they even think about creating a piece of art - or a genuinely evolutionary game.

If you can't see the distinction - then I have no idea how to meet you in this.

I see the distinction in that the audience has changed and therefore the techniques to reach that audience have changed, certainly. I don't know who could miss that. Hence streamlining is used, the whole point of what we are talking about.

What are we debating here?

Pick my battles? I battle when I care about the outcome - and I don't pick battles for my own comfort.

I look back at gaming as it used to be, and I compare it with the general trend today.

I'm sure it can come off as rose-colored glasses nostalgia to those who don't really see the problem - and those who think I should just accept what happens lying down.

It's not about thinking I can really make a difference - but simply about having a voice and articulating my sadness and issues in a way that might be picked up by someone and so the message is spread.

Looking at Dragon Age 2 as a recent example, there are still lessons to be learned by the developers, even with their acknowledgment - and if our criticism can help make the message clear - I'll consider it well worth my time.

I don't really know what you think we disagree on, other than the simple fact I seem to be able to enjoy modern games as well as prefer the older ones. On every forum I go to that seems to be a big divide between me and many others, the fact that I can say Fallout and Doom 2 are better games and deeper, richer experiences than most of what we get today, but at the same time I like what we get today anyway.

It's sort of similar to how I can love both an intense drama like Eyes Wide Shut and a silly action romp like Die Hard. They offer me different things and I love them both, just like I love the slow-paced Blade Runner and Alien as well as the fast-paced Aliens and Predator. Different styles, different movies, but both have something to offer. I don't get the people that insist one is good and therefore the other is stupid, or boring, or whatever else.

I love Fallout for its turn-based combat, rich dialogue system and writing as well as its great locations and atmosphere. I also love Fallout: New Vegas for its fun shooter combat, brilliant 3D open-world exploration and well-written dialogue. Is it different? Yes. Was it made to appeal to more people than an isometric turn-based RPG would today? Certainly. Is it bad? Hell no, just different. Similarly even though Crysis 2 is streamlined compared to Crysis I still like it, because it's a fun game. From Doom to Dark Forces to Hexen to Quake 2 to Duke Nukem to NOLF to Call of Duty to Farcry to Doom 3 to Crysis to Modern Warfare to Bioshock to Crysis 2, I don't understand why I can't like ALL of them, despite some being worse than others or more streamlined than others.

So... to make a long post even longer, I guess my point about "picking my battles" is that I'll bitch when I don't like a game. I like Crysis 2, and a lot of other games people here and on other forums would call "streamlined console trash" or whatever else. Shortly before Crysis 2 came out for example I also really loved Bulletstorm, that game was 10+ hours of non-stop fun for me. Was it as good as Quake 2? Probably not, but when I was having a hell of a lot of fun playing it that direct comparison wasn't really the most important thing on my mind.

Would I rather see more "AAA" games that play like the old days? Hell yeah I would. Is bitching and not playing modern games I still like going to make that happen? Nope. So why? I pick my battles, I enjoy games I enjoy. Some people can't like Crysis 2 and Crysis both, I get that, but I can.

 

[DArtagnan]

You seem to be quite the Diablo enthusiast, which is cool. I'm not, I played both games until the end and then uninstalled them. So, in that regard maybe we are coming at this from very different angles. In any event, my Diablo experience was clicking things until they died and then they pooped out colored loot. I was never challenged and never discovered any deeper mechanics.

I used to be a great fan, yes. I also started out writing it off completely, as a simplistic mindlessly boring action RPG.

In any case Diablo is just an example, if you don't agree with it there are many others. The core point remains the same, that developers and publishers have been expanding the gaming audience for decades now, on every platform, and it's not a console thing. You seem to make pretty much the same point below, so other than disagreeing about Diablo being an example I don't know what else there is to argue about on this point.

I don't disagree that Diablo was streamlined from Rogue - but I considered it a natural consequence of taking an ancient concept to modern standards. I don't think the game suffered for it, and I don't think Blizzard catered to casual gamers whilst ignoring enthusiast gamers.

A happy mix, you could say. Blizzard used to be masters at it.

That's not a different kind of streamlining, that's one of the core tenets of streamlining. I didn't mean to say Crysis was a hard game, I said it required more player effort and thought. One of the most crucial aspects of streamlining is removing player effort and thought, focusing on the "fun" parts. This ignores the "hardcore" crowd who enjoy overcoming challenges and thinking through a complex or open part of a game.

Too semantic to waste our time on, I think. Basically, we agree on this.

Of course, but games have always been about profit. Even when they were made for 100,000 nerds instead of 10,000,000 mainstream gamers they were still about profit. As you say below, the only difference is who you are trying to make that profit from.

I think profit has always been a part of game development, as it is with any product.

What I think has changed, is that there's no longer room for true innovation without it being about profit FIRST.

I think the gaming industry was formed, originally, by nerds and enthusiasts - and as such the games were developed with a passion that matched that of the end-user. Greedy publishers were always a part of the picture, but I think they used to simply rely on the developers to meet audience expectations. These days, it seems the suits are the ones designing the game behind the scenes.

We can only speculate as to how big a part of the picture profit was - but it's my firm opinion that money wasn't always the focus in the past - where it's almost always the focus today with AAA titles.

I see the distinction in that the audience has changed and therefore the techniques to reach that audience have changed, certainly. I don't know who could miss that. Hence streamlining is used, the whole point of what we are talking about.

The distinction in itself might be obvious - but it's also the problem I'm having. I don't really give two shits about motivation - I care only about the end result.

Today, the end result is an endless line of samey "experience" driven products - and it used to be innovative and interesting games.

What are we debating here?

Not sure. I think we're debating how streamlining is different today than it used to be. At least that's the point I'm making.

I don't really know what you think we disagree on, other than the simple fact I seem to be able to enjoy modern games as well as prefer the older ones. On every forum I go to that seems to be a big divide between me and many others, the fact that I can say Fallout and Doom 2 are better games and deeper, richer experiences than most of what we get today, but at the same time I like what we get today anyway.

What makes you think I don't like what we get today?

Well, much of it I don't like - but I like some of it just fine. I'm as much a graphics whore as the next guy, and I like some shiny explosions.

What I don't like, is that the potential of games today is completely ignored in favor of the dollar.

Essentially, I despise what capitalism does for the human endeavour and condition in general. This goes for everything - but games happen to be my beloved passtime.

It's sort of similar to how I can love both an intense drama like Eyes Wide Shut and a silly action romp like Die Hard. They offer me different things and I love them both, just like I love the slow-paced Blade Runner and Alien as well as the fast-paced Aliens and Predator. Different styles, different movies, but both have something to offer. I don't get the people that insist one is good and therefore the other is stupid, or boring, or whatever else.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I'm not saying mainstream games are stupid or boring in an objective sense. They're just not what I want.

I love Fallout for its turn-based combat, rich dialogue system and writing as well as its great locations and atmosphere. I also love Fallout: New Vegas for its fun shooter combat, brilliant 3D open-world exploration and well-written dialogue. Is it different? Yes. Was it made to appeal to more people than an isometric turn-based RPG would today? Certainly. Is it bad? Hell no, just different. Similarly even though Crysis 2 is streamlined compared to Crysis I still like it, because it's a fun game. From Doom to Dark Forces to Hexen to Quake 2 to Duke Nukem to NOLF to Call of Duty to Farcry to Doom 3 to Crysis to Modern Warfare to Bioshock to Crysis 2, I don't understand why I can't like ALL of them, despite some being worse than others or more streamlined than others.

I'm not at all sure why you think that because others don't enjoy the mainstream mindset dominance, and the lack of true or sufficient innovation - you can't enjoy it.

Why would you let others influence you like that?

You don't mind that AAA games are what they are - then what's the problem?

So… to make a long post even longer, I guess my point about "picking my battles" is that I'll bitch when I don't like a game. I like Crysis 2, and a lot of other games people here and on other forums would call "streamlined console trash" or whatever else. Shortly before Crysis 2 came out for example I also really loved Bulletstorm, that game was 10+ hours of non-stop fun for me. Was it as good as Quake 2? Probably not, but when I was having a hell of a lot of fun playing it that direct comparison wasn't really the most important thing on my mind.

Ah. Well, to me it's not really about the games as they are - but what they could be.

So, I bitch about what's happening to games - and I bitch about them not being anything at all like what they could have been.

I bitch about money being the focus - rather than the games themselves being entirely bad or "shit".

Would I rather see more "AAA" games that play like the old days? Hell yeah I would. Is bitching and not playing modern games I still like going to make that happen? Nope. So why? I pick my battles, I enjoy games I enjoy. Some people can't like Crysis 2 and Crysis both, I get that, but I can.

This is where we differ. To me, our money and our voice is all we have to vote with.

So, I try to voice my opinion as much as I can - everywhere. That's how things change, even if you don't really notice it.

It's not important that I feel my own role in any change in the industry climate. I just like to do my bit, regardless of whether it's heard or not.

If it turns out that my opinion is not followed - or that my representation of the audience as a single individual is overlooked - then at least I've said my piece.

 

[Thrasher]

Diablo was a modern multiplayer version of the Rogue-like concept.

It was accessible and had strong mainstream appeal - but if you look at the sequel, I don't think it's part of the modern streamlining mindset.

I think they just wanted to prove the concept would work in multiplayer with strong aesthetics - and boy did they ever. The game was quite hard if you compare it to a casual game - and I certainly got slaughtered quite a bit, even on normal difficulty. At least until I learned the ropes - and I'm no casual gamer.

No, I don't think Diablo was really a "streamlined" game - and the sequel added considerable complexity.

The Diablo series is deceptively simple - because it comes off like a simplistic hack/slash game to the uninformed. Going deeper, it's actually a very challenging game with interesting mechanics. Most of the challenge comes from proper loot configuration and the right tactical approach to specific monsters.

The sequel added a ton of character build complexity. Having a proper build was absolutely essential for survival on Nightmare and Hell difficulty levels.

I think many play through it once on normal, without realising the design in terms of difficulty levels. It's not a game that's about completing the story, but about building your character and gathering loot for that build. Normal level hardly gets you started - and serves only as an introduction to the real meat of the game - which is where it becomes challenging and the interesting loot and build diversity comes into play.

Anyone who has tried to tackle Diablo 1 or 2 on harder difficulty modes - knows that the game was neither simplistic nor easy.

I certainly don't think so

Well said. I wish I had the time and patience to explain myself so well.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

Ah. Well, to me it's not really about the games as they are - but what they could be.

I think this is the main difference between me and you, and other people here. I don't really focus on this, if I did I likely could not enjoy many modern games.

 

[sakichop]

So after all is said and done is this a good game. I liked the first one except for the crazy alien levels please tell me there are none of those.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

So after all is said and done is this a good game. I liked the first one except for the crazy alien levels please tell me there are none of those.

It's pretty much FEAR without the scary parts in a sunny urban environment with the nanosuit. There are alien levels, but the aliens in this game are more human-like and you can stealth them.

 

[JDR13]

What.. you mean we're actually back to talking about Crysis 2?

Regarding the aliens.. I found them very disappointing. Poor AI, and they posed very little challenge most of the time. Actually, I found the AI in general to be fairly poor throughout the game.

I also kept waiting for an in-game explanation as to why they looked so different from the original Crysis.