I haven't bought and/or played the final game. I remember finishing the first and looking so forward to the next two, more of the same but better, but when I heard they were going multi-platform, I grew a bit concerned. I then heard it was taking place in an apocalyptic New York, which I knew meant a more smaller/linear game. "What?" That's when I lost alot of hope too, I held onto a little hope and still looked forward to playing it. Crysis that didn't have huge maps and in another setting could still be good, if a bit different. Then the demo came and I played that and it all changed. Sure, it's a demo, and just multiplayer, but it showed what the game was. I didn't like it, and changed plans to buy it. I've since seen YouTube videos, and also from what I've heard, I'm convinced enough to form the opinion that this isn't the game for me. Therefore, I dislike it, and here's why.
I'll spare the tired "consolitis" cry. Everywhere I look, alot of the people displeased with the game are mentioning stuff along those lines. I dislike the game for other reasons, so it's not just another "it's a console port" opinion. Though the game going multiplatform was one of the deeper causes of the changes to the game, that in itself isn't the ultimate reason for my dislike of it.
So why do I dislike it? Simply put, to me, Crysis was the open sandbox and gamplay of the first. It was also the lush jungle. Far Cry was all of this, and Crysis was it's spiritual successor that did it all as well. I think many people set themselves up because of the hype, and went in expecting a bit more of an instant gratification and/or genre redefining game, and when it wasn't that, out came the "cliche/dumb story, no gameplay, poor performance, and only graphics" summarizations of the game. It definitely had performance issues with hardware of the time. It was far from perfect (namely the second half). It did not redefine the genre. At the end of the day though, I love the open world, and the gameplay, while not the best, was still very fun for me. The open world and nanosuit were brilliant, but many seemed to miss it and/or play it wrong and not see this, but the gameplay was there (in my opinion). The story was enough for an FPS. The graphics were, well, it needn't be said, and the customizing was a PC gamers dream. It is a very great game, and one, to this day, I am liking more and more as I play it more. I have a play through of Far Cry planned soon enough as well. These are great games.
The second takes that gameplay and does away with it, in short for, as some have said, a Call of Duty/Crysis mixed breed, and that is not what I expected or what I even like. To me, this isn't Crysis in much of anything but name, and that is why I dislike it. The "consolitis" aspects are just icing on the cake, but if a game is good, I can overlook that because it doesn't matter by itself (it's still something worth mentioning). The developers (CryTek)/games that once pioneered PC visuals and all, and were great games themselves even, completely changed to a console generic shooter (and although it uses DirectX 9, it does at least look good and run well).
It may be a good game in it's own right, but it's not the type of game I expected or wanted. In that regard, just like many others went into the first expecting something and getting another, I am the same way with the second, only it's not that I set myself up over hype, rather I expected Crysis 2 and got a mix of Call of Duty, which I really don't like, thrown in. It was clearly prioritized for both the consoles and Call of Duty fans, and for them, it might be great. Unfortunately, I myself don't like what I see, so I don't like it, and that's why.
Edited by Princess Garnet - 3/27/11 at 4:36am