"@ajamafalous said:" @Rockdalf said:I don't know, I guess it's a reasonable complaint, but it seems to mostly be perspective. I wouldn't pick up a game personally on the assumption that it was designed to be like it's predecessor. I mean some games are going to be similar, take the Halo franchise for example, but Mass Effect and it's direct sequel both had very different elements and changes to their game play, and not everyone would say those things were improvements. Basically it's not unfounded to want a game to be like it's predecessor but it may be to say that the game is flawed because it is not. Besides, I think Geno brought up plenty of valid examples on how this game is flawed besides his personal preference. "" It's obvious that you like the first game and the fact that the second game wasn't designed to be similar seems to be your biggest complaint. "I saw a lot of people using this same defense for Dragon Age 2. Is it not unfounded to want a sequel to be like it's predecessor? Obviously, if you're interested in a sequel, you enjoyed what the first game did and want more of it. When the developer starts removing entire gameplay mechanics that are staples of the first game, shouldn't those removals be eligible flaws to critique by fans of the first game? "
None of Geno's comparisons that you cited were just a matter of personal preference, in my opinion. Things like the size of the environments, the destructibility, and the limited ammo were things that played to the strengths of Crysis, so the point of bringing up the comparison is to show that they have been changed in ways that no longer play to the game's strengths, which makes them a perfectly legitimate flaw to bring up, I think. The AI comparison was strictly qualitative, as was the barrel placement comparison as it compares the quality of an aspect of game design between the two games (implying one to be sensible, and the other to be blatantly lazy and haphazard).
Log in to comment