A gorgeous step down
Weird story: back when I first bought a new laptop, I decided to buy the original Crysis since despite its notoriety for being hard to run, me (with no tech knowledge whatsoever) thought a brand new laptop can run a 2 year old game. Heh, nope. So when I finally got me a gaming PC and new video card, Crysis was the first thing I popped in. And while I already played Crysis 2 on consoles, this year was the first time I was able to play the games "as they were meant to be played" with fully maxed out graphics and KB&M controls. The unfortunate thing is that playing Crysis and then immediately re-playing the sequel makes me actually look more fondly on the original in retrospect as the pretty graphics and capable shooting and gameplay just feel as if it was done better.
An alien virus has hit New York leaving a whole lot of sick and gruesomely dead people and in the middle of it all is a soldier named Alcatraz. Being given a superpowered suit by Prophet, character from the first game, Alcatraz must sneak, jump and shoot his way through ruined New York as he makes his way to rescue scientist Nathan Gould and try to stop the alien threat known as the Ceph.
Yes let's get the obvious out of the way: Crysis 2 is one damn fine looking game. While it's hard to say whether it's the best thing I've seen, there's no denying this game doesn't pull any punches when it comes down to visuals. There's a large degree of realism, some impressive lighting and major setpieces that helps make this a graphical standout. Their new engine was almost meant to be a little more lenient in regards to system requirements so it's a tad easier to run but I remember being blown away (and this was only 2 months back, mind) by the original's visuals. Having just played the PC version of this I thought "wow, pretty" but not the mindblower the original gave.
One thing that always stood Crysis apart from most shooters, especially current ones, is the game's encouragement to play however you want. Yank a turret off a vehicle and blast away, plant C4 on cars and traps and blow people up or just sneak past all of them, the freedom for experimention and to be a little more improv-y with your actions is always welcome. However because the environments are more restricted than before, the vast freedom isn't quite as prevalent here. Your suit will pop up saying "tactical options available" and yet your scan will only reveal a handful of things but with such a small playing space, it's not quite as interesting as before.
Like most shooters, if not the vast majority of them, Crysis 2 comes with a full multiplayer suite and it's....iffy. Now keep in mind, I played both the 360's and the PC's multiplayer and aside from a server list, things are pretty much the same...and I hate it. Well, "hate" may be a strong word but even a year ago, I didn't care for this multiplayer at all. Lag issues, severe hit detection problems and the very core of the game promoted camping and an armor mode that seemed made out of tinfoil, whatever promise it had flew out the window once I actually started to play. And it's pretty much the same thing here so while a server and ping list is welcome, actual games still revolved around me getting killed in a couple of bullets despite armor mode being on and spawns are still horrendous. You have the standard Call of Duty progression of the more you play the more upgrades and unlocks at your disposal but lack that style of progression, it always feels like the more helpful things are past the hours and hours of BS you have to put up with.
In my original 360 review, I remarked that Crytek always felt like Guerrilla of "Killzone" fame: next-gen in visuals but last-gen in fun. Whereas the MP was always their draw, it's the opposite in Crytek's case. The single player in this is definitely worth a playthrough and with a beefy rig, this will be lovely on the eyes but the multiplayer is an acquired taste and I never developed a liking for it. May not be an absolutely stellar game but it's very good in its own right.
