Bump.

Generally, developers don't change very much in last 1 year.

This is true. Overall, the game mechanics will be extremely similar to what has already been shown of Crysis 3, and ironically it looks extremely similar to Crysis 3 as of what we have seen at the moment.

There are a few things which change within the last year, which is HUD and final optimizations and bug fixing. If Crytek is still stuck doing major gameplay mechanic type work on Crysis 3 right now, expect a delay. It is highly likely that Crysis 3 will be delayed by the way.... Every single Crytek game has been delayed! I'm not sure if Crysis Warhead was delayed, but that was a small expansion which required little actual development.

@ kkrotz: This was a common problem with Crysis 2 on the multiplayer, it had to do with the coding Crytek UK used, which was extremely bug ridden. Crytek UK had very low quality control when it came to developing the multiplayer. Did you play Crysis 1 multiplayer, by the way?

While all you could do in Crysis 1 movement wise was jumping and running, Crysis 2 offers a bigger palette of movement options. Sliding, Ledgegrabbing etc. Things I really love (in fact, I do parcour by myself), and things that really helped Crysis 2 getting out of the horizontal layer of the game, and getting to a more vertical one (admit it, Skyline was the best map in MP, it was small, but the biggest regarding the verticality). If they'd just clean it up more, and add an option to commit these moves manually, it would be perfect.

This is a good point, they did add some ok things to the movement...the sliding was neat even though a little cheesy (and stolen exactly from Mirriors Edge)...same with ledge grabbing. Some of the animations were ok but they also took out lean, prone, Speed ability and cool animations like picking up ammo...damn, I hate just running over an image of bullets and magically have ammo.

Anyway, they did try to do different things but they also tripped out some core badass ****. If they would've left those alone and added the new stuff, I would have no complaints.

The ledge grabbing was definitely an improvement, but Crytek should continue to advance the feature by making the player have to manually press a button to ledge grab.

Crytek enhanced player mobility when it came to pacing with the sliding and ledge grabbing, but left out the more strategic moves like lean and proning. I feel like this negatively impacted the gameplay to a large degree, even though Crysis Wars could have a much faster pace in the arena type aim-map's.

Part of pacing is that the player needs fast firefights with a rest period in between, and Crysis 2 did not accomplish this very well; only allowing for a consistently fast pacing. Crysis had an extremely fast pacing under certain situations, but it allowed for a rest period in between firefights or to slow things down with prone and lean functions.

One could choose between the extremely fast pace of arena type TDM matches in Crysis, or the expansive slower pace of Power Struggle. Under Crysis 2, you only had the choice of the arena type matches and this negatively effected the multiplayer.

It is the feeling of choice which makes Crysis feel like such a superior multiplayer experience over Crysis 2. Crysis 2 is in many ways a locked down experience which demands how the gamer plays the game. Crysis 1 gave the gamer several assets and opportunities, and left the rest to the gamer's creative minds.

Your point regarding the pacing is a GREAT one. I constantly felt pushed into nothing but battle after battle and really ended up not giving a **** what my plan was or having much fun....I remember there was even certain areas where enemies would just continue to respawn....I really wanted to just kill everyone off and explore the area for fun but it wouldn't allow it.

Maybe that's what they were going for but that's not what made Crysis 1 the great experience it was...it's why I will definitely go back and play Crysis 1 and not C2. I can appreciate games that do this like COD and others but the replay value is almost nothing to me and doesn't allow time to soak things in and give you much freedom.

There was one time in Crysis 2 on my second playthrough where I had a crazy glitch...it happened right after you find the first crashed alien ship, you come out from the underground sewer room and have your first fight with the aliens and then have to make your way down to the underground bus tunnel. When you come out of the tunnel you encounter a battle where the soldiers are battling the aliens, except...there was no battle, in fact there was no one but me running down the flooded street until the next load scene. I had a moment to explore, looking up and checking out the city, jumping over the abandoned cars and rubble, it was freakin sweet and actually gave me a moment to take in what might have happend to NYC. I realized that this pacing was missing in C2 in a serious way. In Crysis 1 they had killer moments like this all the time...I can't tell you how often I would take a moment to simply sit back and admire the scenes they created...sunsets, waterfalls etc and it gave to time to plan out a ideas and if your plan screwed up you could take off, cool down and devise another plan.

I hope Crytek implements more pacing into C3...I don't want to get pushed every moment of every level to fight AI that keeps respawning. I want to have some freedom to figure things out, explore and feel like I accomplish something by wiping out an area of enemies that won't return.

Talon, great point!

You said it even better than I did, haha.

Especially the hive battles in the Singleplayer where you are fighting through hordes of aliens to get to Hargreave's mansion... The pacing of those levels (and the level design itself) svcked, it did nothing but throw alien after alien after you. I got so bored of these levels that I literally just cloaked past all of the aliens, because skipping the battles was more enjoyable than actually playing the game.

The pacing of a game should present the player the opportunity to enter the battle on their own will, with ample rest periods between each battle. Crysis got this down well for the most part, but the pacing was a little slow for some. Crysis Warhead had almost perfect pacing.

Crysis 2 however, there was something off with the pacing which made the game not enjoyable to play. There was rarely a chance that I could explore the map areas in Crysis 2 and strategize my next attack, and on the rare chance that I did have that opportunity, it helped make the game feel a lot better to me.

I was sad to see respawning enemies in Crysis 2 - to me it's a real cheap way of creating a level. In Crysis it felt like there was an actual enemy force on the Island, once you had despatched them then there was breathing space for you to explore the area. Reinforcements may have driven into the area in vehicles.

In Crysis 2 a lot of the time it just felt like you were fighting AI bots, especially when they just randomly appear from thin air right before your eyes. It was odd that the AI seemed to be a step backwards from the original title - I can only assume the limitations of the console were to blame.

I was sad to see respawning enemies in Crysis 2 - to me it's a real cheap way of creating a level. In Crysis it felt like there was an actual enemy force on the Island, once you had despatched them then there was breathing space for you to explore the area. Reinforcements may have driven into the area in vehicles.

In Crysis 2 a lot of the time it just felt like you were fighting AI bots, especially when they just randomly appear from thin air right before your eyes. It was odd that the AI seemed to be a step backwards from the original title - I can only assume the limitations of the console were to blame.

I definitely feel like the AI was designed around the level in Crysis 1. There was no such thing as respawning enemies. One of the best things I loved was how if you were detected by the KPA, they would fire off a flare.. The flare would alert nearby patrol boats and vehicles that they were needed pronto at the location of the battle.

This type of gameplay also encouraged a very stealthy approach, setting out a plan of action and only executing it when the time was right. The respawning enemies in Crysis 2 did definitely feel like a cheap way to not have the AI designed specifically to the situation, and it helps to ruin the immersive feeling which Crysis 1 had nailed down perfectly.. In Crysis 1, you truly felt like you were on the island. That immersiveness simply wasn't there in Crysis 2.

That AI thing is true. Trying to sneak around to prevent them from firing that flare always felt like a achievement when you did it. Also killing of the reinforcements then kill the village or something was really fun. It also felt much less scripted.

Only sometimes AI spawned when u trigger a alarm and more AI would spawn so sometimes, like in Assault i had the problem of 3 guys spawning in front of me when i triggered the alarm

That AI thing is true. Trying to sneak around to prevent them from firing that flare always felt like a achievement when you did it. Also killing of the reinforcements then kill the village or something was really fun. It also felt much less scripted.

Only sometimes AI spawned when u trigger a alarm and more AI would spawn so sometimes, like in Assault i had the problem of 3 guys spawning in front of me when i triggered the alarm

Yeah, it was always a great time to wipe out a village and then completely destroy all of the buildings until the entire landscape was flattened... or harass the turtles... But these are just a few of the many things you could do in Crysis 1, which would give a good pacing feel to slow the game down a bit between battles - and it was accomplished in a very enjoyable way.

I was sad to see respawning enemies in Crysis 2 - to me it's a real cheap way of creating a level. In Crysis it felt like there was an actual enemy force on the Island, once you had despatched them then there was breathing space for you to explore the area. Reinforcements may have driven into the area in vehicles.

In Crysis 2 a lot of the time it just felt like you were fighting AI bots, especially when they just randomly appear from thin air right before your eyes. It was odd that the AI seemed to be a step backwards from the original title - I can only assume the limitations of the console were to blame.

I definitely feel like the AI was designed around the level in Crysis 1. There was no such thing as respawning enemies. One of the best things I loved was how if you were detected by the KPA, they would fire off a flare.. The flare would alert nearby patrol boats and vehicles that they were needed pronto at the location of the battle.

This type of gameplay also encouraged a very stealthy approach, setting out a plan of action and only executing it when the time was right. The respawning enemies in Crysis 2 did definitely feel like a cheap way to not have the AI designed specifically to the situation, and it helps to ruin the immersive feeling which Crysis 1 had nailed down perfectly.. In Crysis 1, you truly felt like you were on the island. That immersiveness simply wasn't there in Crysis 2.


+1 on encouraging stealth approaches and inducing 'plan of action' setting.

LOL, love you guys for the lack on knowledge!

It's like you dont even see for yourself or understand that part 2 was the first crysis to hit the consoles! This is the only reason that part 2 was a lame and silly as it was on pc. People should not and should never expect a consoleport to be a great game compaired to the same game being made 100% on a pc for a pc! The pc doesn not have the restictions that a console has. Dont you understand that the flawes that part 2 has/had are all just due to multi-platform development.

My pc version of part 2 - booting it up the first time - said: "PRESS START!"

which pc game ever told you to press start? WOW. I rest my case!

[part 2]after a couple of upgrades on my nano stealth option i could seriously just walk pass every enemy and finish the game without haveing to really shoot any 1. POOR CONSOLE LEVEL DESING[/part 2]

LOL, love you guys for the lack on knowledge!

It's like you dont even see for yourself or understand that part 2 was the first crysis to hit the consoles! This is the only reason that part 2 was a lame and silly as it was on pc. People should not and should never expect a consoleport to be a great game compaired to the same game being made 100% on a pc for a pc! The pc doesn not have the restictions that a console has. Dont you understand that the flawes that part 2 has/had are all just due to multi-platform development.

My pc version of part 2 - booting it up the first time - said: "PRESS START!"

which pc game ever told you to press start? WOW. I rest my case!

[part 2]after a couple of upgrades on my nano stealth option i could seriously just walk pass every enemy and finish the game without haveing to really shoot any 1. POOR CONSOLE LEVEL DESING[/part 2]

I don't think you have read close enough then, because I agree with you to a large extent.

Crysis 2 was an extremely bad console port and Crytek's first console game, but that is no excuse for Crytek. They knew exactly what they were doing changing audiences in Crysis 2, and many of the console-oriented decisions are staying in Crysis 3.

DX11 graphics don't automatically make Crysis 3 a non-console port. It's a fact that Crysis 3 will be held back from a design standpoint to cater towards these lower threshold devices, and it's a large reason why I'm stemming my optimism. It isn't like any gameplay shown so far calls for any level of excitement anyway... It was just more of the same lame generic console type gameplay.

Has anyone played Crysis 1 on both console and PC? Maybe they could share what compromises were made to squeeze that title onto the consoles.

DX11 graphics don't automatically make Crysis 3 a non-console port. It's a fact that Crysis 3 will be held back from a design standpoint to cater towards these lower threshold devices, and it's a large reason why I'm stemming my optimism. It isn't like any gameplay shown so far calls for any level of excitement anyway... It was just more of the same lame generic console type gameplay.

That plus origin mandatory, no reason to purchase this game. To bad the serie died after warhead and ea knock on the door

STOP CHEATERS, bring back the vehicles, make bigger maps!... and bring the Gauss rifle from C1/C.W. The C2 version is a s.hitty weapon.

DX11 graphics don't automatically make Crysis 3 a non-console port. It's a fact that Crysis 3 will be held back from a design standpoint to cater towards these lower threshold devices, and it's a large reason why I'm stemming my optimism. It isn't like any gameplay shown so far calls for any level of excitement anyway... It was just more of the same lame generic console type gameplay.

That plus origin mandatory, no reason to purchase this game. To bad the serie died after warhead and ea knock on the door

I seriously can't stand Origin. It's nothing but crappy bloatware.

Honestly, I'm not sure if Crytek would have a lot to gain by ending their partnership with EA, but the quality of their games would improve exponentially.

Also, console players don't care much for graphics, hence their decision to be on a cheaper console. I think the sweet spot would be for Crytek to develop the game mechanics solely for PC, then port the entire game over to console, fit it to the controller, and scale the graphics down. At this point it would probably backfire on them since it would seem on the surface like they are taking a step backwards with Crysis 3, but I do wish that Crytek took this approach with the consoles from the start.

leasons learned if you ask me! Their console approach didnt work! The sad part of the pc segment, is that many pc gamer dont purchase these brilliant games. Why cant people spend a few buck on a brilliant game, not counting Crysis2 here! I bought all crytek games for pc and they all rocked, besides crysis 2. The amount of downloads on the pc of Crysis2 was seriously amazing last year and really worries me. For this reason I can understand that Crytek does not only want to sell on the pc segment. Your approach does sound pausbile, but I worry about the bastards that DL pc games. Although Skyrim, BF3, Batman2 and the witcher 2 did pretty damn good on the pc in 2011 and I just know that MAx payne 3, Bioshock3 and dishonered will also do well on pc this year, so can Crysis3 in 2013.
I bought all these games on pc, not only because they looked great, but also cuz of the simple fact, that these games are really good and worth every penny you spend on them.

leasons learned if you ask me! Their console approach didnt work! The sad part of the pc segment, is that many pc gamer dont purchase these brilliant games. Why cant people spend a few buck on a brilliant game, not counting Crysis2 here! I bought all crytek games for pc and they all rocked, besides crysis 2. The amount of downloads on the pc of Crysis2 was seriously amazing last year and really worries me. For this reason I can understand that Crytek does not only want to sell on the pc segment. Your approach does sound pausbile, but I worry about the bastards that DL pc games. Although Skyrim, BF3, Batman2 and the witcher 2 did pretty damn good on the pc in 2011 and I just know that MAx payne 3, Bioshock3 and dishonered will also do well on pc this year, so can Crysis3 in 2013.
I bought all these games on pc, not only because they looked great, but also cuz of the simple fact, that these games are really good and worth every penny you spend on them.

Well, over 7 million people pirated Crysis 2 on the PC. These numbers are astronomically high and would supposedly reinforce why Crytek decided to move away from the PC segment.

My argument is that if Crytek put out a more PC oriented focus for Crysis 2, that 7 million could have been split in half to 3.5 million sold, 3.5 million pirated copies (and this is reasonable comparing to titles like BF3 piracy). That's an additional $210 Million in EA's pockets, and by extension, Crytek.

The PC market still has huge potential for Crytek to tap back into if they really decided to focus into it. Games without a brand image to get noticed obviously won't be pirated much at all on PC, and Crysis 2 had insane piracy numbers... Piracy is a potential market for Crytek to grab back into sales.

I seriously can't stand Origin. It's nothing but crappy bloatware.

Honestly, I'm not sure if Crytek would have a lot to gain by ending their partnership with EA, but the quality of their games would improve exponentially.

Also, console players don't care much for graphics, hence their decision to be on a cheaper console. I think the sweet spot would be for Crytek to develop the game mechanics solely for PC, then port the entire game over to console, fit it to the controller, and scale the graphics down. At this point it would probably backfire on them since it would seem on the surface like they are taking a step backwards with Crysis 3, but I do wish that Crytek took this approach with the consoles from the start.
You'd be surprised how many console players do care about graphics, and are constantly looking for something which looks better on their console than on the other. Hell, when Crysis 2 came out the forums were full of people whining about how Xbox looked better in some areas than PS3 and vice versa. It's also what Crytek are known for, so it will carry an air of expectation.

But sure, if you could educate the people who do care about the visuals that great graphics only mean they receive a worse game, perhaps more people would open their eyes to what is important.

I seriously can't stand Origin. It's nothing but crappy bloatware.

Honestly, I'm not sure if Crytek would have a lot to gain by ending their partnership with EA, but the quality of their games would improve exponentially.

Also, console players don't care much for graphics, hence their decision to be on a cheaper console. I think the sweet spot would be for Crytek to develop the game mechanics solely for PC, then port the entire game over to console, fit it to the controller, and scale the graphics down. At this point it would probably backfire on them since it would seem on the surface like they are taking a step backwards with Crysis 3, but I do wish that Crytek took this approach with the consoles from the start.
You'd be surprised how many console players do care about graphics, and are constantly looking for something which looks better on their console than on the other. Hell, when Crysis 2 came out the forums were full of people whining about how Xbox looked better in some areas than PS3 and vice versa. It's also what Crytek are known for, so it will carry an air of expectation.

But sure, if you could educate the people who do care about the visuals that great graphics only mean they receive a worse game, perhaps more people would open their eyes to what is important.


Yeah, you do have a good point. At this point it would be suicide for Crytek to change the focus on their console demographics anyway, but it would be great if the PC gameplay design didn't suffer because of it.

I don't see why devs need to dumb down gameplay (graphics I can understand) for consoles, I mean if consoles can run games like Far Cry 2 and Fallout 3 then why do they need to dumb down gameplay? It's just an excuse IMO

I don't see why devs need to dumb down gameplay (graphics I can understand) for consoles, I mean if consoles can run games like Far Cry 2 and Fallout 3 then why do they need to dumb down gameplay? It's just an excuse IMO
Well, there are a number of reasons.

Firstly, to run wide open areas on limited RAM they have to make the game look worse, that much is a fact. There are a number of tricks they can pull to make it less obvious, but the point remains. In a business where the average consumer is completely uninformed and simply wants better graphics with each sequel, lowering the visuals for a bigger game is a very risky move for a AAA release. Hell, most of the people on this forum don't seem to understand, and they're amongst the more informed.

Secondly, there is the obvious fact that commands have to be ergonomically bound to a controller. Nobody could deny that everything couldn't be bound, it's just that doing it in a way which is actually easy to pick up, learn and use without forcing the player to read the manual, is more difficult. This can reasonably cause developers to use less commands, in favour of ease of use.

Thirdly, PC and consoles simply have different preferences as a whole. This isn't necessary well represented by the forum crowd because of the fact that they're largely a small subset of the customer base, which tend to share similar views on gaming. On the whole however, PC gamers simply like different things. They'll rage over anything they don't think is value for money, they expect detail to be pretty much everywhere on a full-price game and they want wide open spaces which stress their PC. Console players don't usually share these concerns. Before anyone jumps in and rages, that is NOT to say or imply that console players are stupid etc, it's just that, on the whole, they take a less serious attitude to gaming, and therefore tend to both know less and care less when it comes to their game's design; in favour of whether or not it plays well, looks nice and the controls actually work.

I'm certain someone's going to wade in seething with rage here and feel as though I've insulted them.. I would however prefer that they re-read the post first, because all I will do in response is point out where their reading comprehension has failed them..

I don't see why devs need to dumb down gameplay (graphics I can understand) for consoles, I mean if consoles can run games like Far Cry 2 and Fallout 3 then why do they need to dumb down gameplay? It's just an excuse IMO

Cuz you probalby lack the knowledge about the hardware layer that runs the software (= game)
The first trailer of BF3 was in fulld hd on a pc and most consolegamers seriously thought that they would to have that look to on their simple console, just because they dont really understand what kind of components are needed to display games like the first bf3 trailers.

I don't see why devs need to dumb down gameplay (graphics I can understand) for consoles, I mean if consoles can run games like Far Cry 2 and Fallout 3 then why do they need to dumb down gameplay? It's just an excuse IMO

Cuz you probalby lack the knowledge about the hardware layer that runs the software (= game)
The first trailer of BF3 was in fulld hd on a pc and most consolegamers seriously thought that they would to have that look to on their simple console, just because they dont really understand what kind of components are needed to display games like the first bf3 trailers.
Do us all a favour and stop with your nonsense. You don't help the image of PC gamers as elitists.

Do us all a favour and stop with your nonsense. You don't help the image of PC gamers as elitists.

nonsense? Nice useless reply...care to explain where the nonsense is in my response?

Do us all a favour and stop with your nonsense. You don't help the image of PC gamers as elitists.

nonsense? Nice useless reply...care to explain where the nonsense is in my response?


He means you're making pc gamers seem more like asses every time a single word comes out of your mouth.