Beamer wrote on Apr 17, 2012, 11:35:

Yeah, but it makes games much more fun. DX:HR would be no fun at all without being able to sneak around with a silencer.
Then again, in the original I really used the dart gun for almost everthing...

Jerykk wrote on Apr 17, 2012, 02:10:
A design decision largely driven by a console's limitations. Crytek simply could not replicate the same experience of Crysis on consoles without compromising it (as the ports eventually proved), so they decided to avoid that path entirely and go the city route. You may prefer this route but you can't really ignore the technical reasons behind it.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 17, 2012, 02:10:
I don't live in New York so I don't really have any emotional attachment to it. NY is also heavily overused in movies, television, comics and games, to the point where it's become stale as a setting. To be fair, I haven't found the story or writing of any of Crytek's games to be particularly compelling so the setting is largely irrelevant to me anyway.

SXO wrote on Apr 17, 2012, 08:53:
The story and setting in Crysis 2 was in fact changed from what they originally planned to make. Originally the plan was that you would play as Prophet as he went back into the island to take on the alien threat (as evidenced by the cliffhangar ending of the first game). They also stated as much after Warhead launched.

Creston wrote on Apr 17, 2012, 11:32:

Bhruic wrote on Apr 17, 2012, 01:04:

That said, it's still nowhere near as effective as an assault rifle with a silencer on it.

True, but perhaps they are doing it properly, where a suppressor decreases the noise volume, but doesn't eliminate it.

Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming.

You'd be amazed how many people believe that a silencer literally makes ANY gun completely silent...

It's the typical Hollywood myths. They've been debunked a million times, but because the people at large believe they are true, Hollywood will still happily use them.

Creston

Bhruic wrote on Apr 17, 2012, 01:04:

That said, it's still nowhere near as effective as an assault rifle with a silencer on it.

True, but perhaps they are doing it properly, where a suppressor decreases the noise volume, but doesn't eliminate it.

Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 17, 2012, 02:10:
A design decision largely driven by a console's limitations. Crytek simply could not replicate the same experience of Crysis on consoles without compromising it (as the ports eventually proved), so they decided to avoid that path entirely and go the city route. You may prefer this route but you can't really ignore the technical reasons behind it.

zirik wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 19:35:
wait... did i read that correctly? prophet is alive? dont tell me theyre going to reincarnate him in the body of alcatraz. alcatraz might be mute during the entire game but his mind was not dead. the nanosuit kept him from being infected and dying from his injuries. prophet on the other hand shot himself in the head at the beginning of crysis 2. or is this a prequel to crysis 2?

Sure, but didn't Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 have open levels and destructible scenery on console?

And isn't it worth sacrificing a few destructible trees to have a large open environment.

The point is that current gen consoles - despite being incredibly limited - are perfectly capable of handling large open levels, even with destructible scenery. The move to the city in Crysis 2 was a design decision.

It's much more meaningful to have it set in New York as it comes under attack than having you fight Koreans on a random island that you have no emotional attachment to.

Far Cry 2 took bold risks and while they didn't all pay off it was a pioneering title for open world FPS games.

That said, it's still nowhere near as effective as an assault rifle with a silencer on it.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 17, 2012, 00:36:
You're forgetting all the trees which you could dynamically destroy in Crysis. I don't think consoles can handle that, which is why the console ports had significantly fewer trees.

You say that but look at games like Assassin's Creed and Far Cry 2 - huge worlds with minimal load times, all optimised for consoles (and PCs). I honestly think it was a design decision, not a technology constraint.

Bhruic wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 19:15:
Isn't the whole point of a bow as a weapon in a FPS that it can shoot extremely quietly? I would assume that it's going to be aimed at stealth players, who would be able to take people out without any noise giving their position away. Makes sense.

If you can take down aliens and robots with it, on the other hand, it might be a bit silly.

SXO wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 20:58:
Well sir, it seems we have quite different tastes in gaming. I do praise Far Cry 2 for its healing system. I think the industry should've iterated on that system for healing in FPS's instead of the Halo-derived auto-heal system that's become prevalent. FEAR had the right idea with carrying around the health packs, freeing up level designers from having to place them at regular intervals. Some would argue health packs were just as unrealistic as auto-healing, but then Far Cry 2 came out and innovated on it and turned it into an awesome system.

Looking at your sig I have to say our taste for high-end hardware is quite similar. I also looked you up on Steam, and kudos on that impressive collection of games!

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 16:54:

Flatline wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 15:01:
Wait we're so brain damaged we're remembering Far Cry 2 fondly now?

There's no disputing that Far Cry 2 had some very obvious design flaws - AI spawning, vehicle chases, malaria, repetitive missions, lack of non-hostile characters, etc - but the core gameplay was incredibly strong and the setting was unique. Even the plot, while unlikely to win any awards, was more compelling than most (certainly better than Crysis/Crysis 2). And the graphics and performance were excellent, especially considering there were virtually no load screens once in the game. Personally I preferred the visuals in Far Cry 2 to Crysis, though Crysis 2 has better visuals.

I consider Far Cry 2 a better game than the original and better than Crysis and Crysis 2. I don't think it's up there with the likes of Half-Life / HL2 but few games are. The health system was the best I've seen, the diamonds were a nice distraction, the weapons were varied and felt right (though the degradation system was terrible), etc. And the AI was some of the best I've seen. Let me qualify that by stating that some of the AI behaviour was pathetic and some of the worst I've seen (vehicles ramming you, AI respawns, everyone shooting you, etc) but overall because the levels were so open and the addition of vehicles you really had to think how to approach everything - on harder difficulty they really came into their own, yet even when you've got snipers from miles away the game still felt fair.

I'm not worried if other people agree with me or not but I consider Far Cry 2 to be one of the best FPS games I've played and I've played a lot. I'm greatly looking forward to Far Cry 3, as it looks like they've addressed many of the issues people had with it.

Joss wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 18:06:
What I saw with Crysis 2 was, "We have to make this run on consoles so let's block it in. Make it in the city." Lost its luster from that point.

Alamar wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 17:24:
And personally, if it's not on Steam, it's an unlikely purchase... Not because I'm boycotting Origin... Simply because it's not enough of a hit for me to do the extra (although minimal) effort... Which I do for other games I want to play (Diablo 3, Guild War 2 both already pre-purchased).