Can we stop with the graphics for a moment.

I would like to know how the story is, the characters and the variety in level design. All I could find so far is that aliens invade and you're working your way to central park. It's put me off from buying the game atm. Everything is about the graphics and the gunplay. Is it a 10 hour trudge through an urban setting or are there any surprises?  (other then sewers)

Lies and flaseties. Maybe you mean "the biz" that has become the standard since 2005, which basically means utter shit and uninspired level dseign. However as far games from all times go the level design is pretty poor. The game still feels too linear, and to date the beginning of Crysis 1 is the closest any Crysis has come to an engaging, and truly epic level design, solely because of the many different paths through a level. Then it went down the shitter super fast in the last 5-ish chapters, but that's why Crysis is considered such a mediocre game. From what I gathered from my brief time with this game, the game world is smaller so you have a lot less options of roaming. You have the ability to approach certain situations in different manners, but the level itself is pretty much a friken line from point A to point B.

Now don't get me wrong, it's not quite on the level of crappy design that is CoD but it's not even within sight of "the best in the biz." When you go through a level/chapter/w.e 3 times, and you can make it so you never see the same path through it in each playthrough, you know that's good open level design. As far as actual linear designs go though, the best ones are where you don't know where you are going and the game doesn't hold your hand through it like you are a clinically retarded person, like in HL2.

It seems there is a big disparity between some of the maps. Skyline and Pier 17 (the demo maps) are probably the worst looking MP maps on the game. I don't know why they decided to use those in the demo. Maps such as Sanctuary, Terminal, Lighthouse, Drop Zone and a couple others all look amazing and almost as good as the SP. Fire up private matches and run through the MP maps. You'll see what I'm talking about.

I'm not done with the SP yet but what did you think about mission 15? The night section? Wasn't it the most jaw dropping thing you've ever seen? Night, Rain,  Epic lighting

Yes there are suprisingly alot of variety in environments. The story so far is decent but the gameplay and level design are top notch. Its one of my favorite FPS campaigns in a long long time. Not to mention its at least 10 hours actual gameplay. The game may only say 8 hours when you are done but combined with the dying and cut scenes its 10 hours. Once I beat it I'm going back right away to play it on the hardest difficulty setting (supersoldier).

You might as well stop gaming.

Contrary to what you seem to think, some games being made aren't dumbed down for the lowest common denominator just yet.

I actually skipped Mass Effect 2 for this..and im not dissapointed :D Open it.

Game is good, looks good and plays good. The game gets better as it goes.

HOWEVER, i have encountered a bug that made my game unplayable. Its the part after you kill the first Pinger, Chico or Chino is supposed to come out and end the level, he comes out but nothing for me :( the marker doesnt leave him and nothing else happens. (help)

Anywho, up to that point, game is cool. New things are offered and the nanosuit definitely makes it unique from other shooters, but it can feel generec at some points.

*sigh* Graphics are good and definitely the best multiplat FPS out. I had Bad Company 2 and MoH tied for that but now Crysis 2 is on top. And after this past few weeks with ranting on VG on how Crysis has better graphics than KZ3 and U2. Believe me, it doesn't. But it's still eye candy.

Bought it for 360, great multiplayer and single player is amazing and gets better and better and looks amazing on my hd tv. Crysis 2 probably has the best graphics on the 360.

played about 4 hours

It is a pitty that Crytek had to make some compomises to the PC but a studio has to get paid.  The reason I say this is that Crytek after Crysis and Warhead had to make a decision.  Do we keep pushing the PC but not get the same in return for our investment or resources, or we go middle ground, develop an engine that works on all platforms and make some money.  PC gamers would say Crytek sold out but there is a difference between selling out and going out of business.  Producing a game cost a lot of money and if you are not getting the return on investment for a small segement of your user base, then you have to make hard choices.  So Cryengine 3 might not be everything Cryengine 2 was but it allows for Crytek games to be played on multiple systems as well as OS (XP) thus increasing their user base while still maintaining a certain level of graphical fidelity.

I always have a problem with people stating if a game is linear its bad.  A more open game doesn't make a game better.  A lot of open games includng the first Crysis bored a lot of people because you had all of this openess but no focus.  For some people this is a better design but it doesn't make it a better design for everyone and should not be stated as fact.  Crytek already stated that they made the game more linear because if you want to tell a story you need tighter controls of teh environment, where the player is and what is happening then just dropping them into a situation and say find your way.