@Mr Wanna Go
That 's nice. Yet what about Crysis 1 to 2? Any difference in the two for you?

Xbox owner (yes, the "enemy team")
Didn't see much of the 1st Crysis besides a thew epic clips. literally giving your enemies crabs = Win.

I think that when the fans of consoles, who do not have PC and they could not have seen the Crysis 1, they see the Crysis 2 it is going to be charmed with them and sincerely, with the halo it would be ended easily, but CoD is a great very famous saga and with many fans.

EA calling Crysis 2 "The Halo Killer" is a little too ambitious if you ask me.

Maybe it will do well, but it won't achieve the standards and fanbase like Halo. It takes years of work, and I believe in Crytek, as long as they make a great game, we could definitely see something whirling up from the wind in a few years.

But at this time, no. It's not "The Halo Killer". I think EA are getting ahead of themselves here.

EA calling Crysis 2 "The Halo Killer" is a little too ambitious if you ask me.

Maybe it will do well, but it won't achieve the standards and fanbase like Halo. It takes years of work, and I believe in Crytek, as long as they make a great game, we could definitely see something whirling up from the wind in a few years.

But at this time, no. It's not "The Halo Killer". I think EA are getting ahead of themselves here.

Agreed, Halo has more history and already secured a foothold. And can EA really have that kind jurisdiction. ?

EA calling Crysis 2 "The Halo Killer" is a little too ambitious if you ask me.

Maybe it will do well, but it won't achieve the standards and fanbase like Halo. It takes years of work, and I believe in Crytek, as long as they make a great game, we could definitely see something whirling up from the wind in a few years.

But at this time, no. It's not "The Halo Killer". I think EA are getting ahead of themselves here.

Agreed, Halo has more history and already secured a foothold. And can EA really have that kind jurisdiction. ?

Well, what's the harm in Crytek trying to make Crysis 2 a Halo killer ? It's just 'healthy company competition' as mentioned before. Besides, by saying that they want to do really well with Crysis 2 make it a Halo killer, they're already acknowledging that Halo 2 is really good. See what I mean ? So it's a good goal to set.

Some people were quite surprised that Halo was beaten by CoD in terms of sales on the xbox

Well, COD is the big thing these days and it's very easy to see that. Sure Halo titles may be better games, but the fact is CoD has been around for so long and has released so many titles, the first few of witch set the standard for FPS games for some time. (Yes, Halo 1 was a big benchmark but even then...)
Everyone likes COD nowadays (well, a lot of people don't, obviously, but still...). Almost everyone talks about CoD, discussing the different modes and what classes and weapons they use for multiplayer. If you pick a person randomly and ask them if they have played COD, the probability would be much higher than Halo Reach. Ofcourse, many people who have CoD say it's just 'ok' and not that great, but most of the people with Halo Reach say it's awesome. But that's a different issue.

Some people were quite surprised that Halo was beaten by CoD in terms of sales on the xbox

Well, COD is the big thing these days and it's very easy to see that. Sure Halo titles may be better games, but the fact is CoD has been around for so long and has released so many titles, the first few of witch set the standard for FPS games for some time. (Yes, Halo 1 was a big benchmark but even then...)
Everyone likes COD nowadays (well, a lot of people don't, obviously, but still...). Almost everyone talks about CoD, discussing the different modes and what classes and weapons they use for multiplayer. If you pick a person randomly and ask them if they have played COD, the probability would be much higher than Halo Reach. Ofcourse, many people who have CoD say it's just 'ok' and not that great, but most of the people with Halo Reach say it's awesome. But that's a different issue.

For me, if it was choice between only Halo:Reach or COD:MW2/Black Ops - I would choose Cod. Because, Cod already has a strong foothold with "real" modern FPS's and Scifi is rarely acknowledged by a majority of gamers today.

Not saying that I dis-regard Crysis 2, will hold this back. I truly would still choose Crysis 2 over those two titles - any time.

Some people were quite surprised that Halo was beaten by CoD in terms of sales on the xbox

Well, COD is the big thing these days and it's very easy to see that. Sure Halo titles may be better games, but the fact is CoD has been around for so long and has released so many titles, the first few of witch set the standard for FPS games for some time. (Yes, Halo 1 was a big benchmark but even then...)
Everyone likes COD nowadays (well, a lot of people don't, obviously, but still...). Almost everyone talks about CoD, discussing the different modes and what classes and weapons they use for multiplayer. If you pick a person randomly and ask them if they have played COD, the probability would be much higher than Halo Reach. Ofcourse, many people who have CoD say it's just 'ok' and not that great, but most of the people with Halo Reach say it's awesome. But that's a different issue.

I have a lot of respect for the COD games but the first few did not set any standard for FPS games. They were fun and entertaining but didn't become widely known until Modern Warfare.

Cysis already killed halo for me.

Really you cant compare the halo- to the Crysis-franchise at all.
Crysis 1 and warhead are Pc only titles and are mostly played by "hardcoe" - Pc gamers, according to the hardwarepower these guys have.
For a direct comparison you must compare Halo 2 with Crysis 1.. because these are the only titles which are both released on the same platform. You see? Its a no brainer!
For Crysis 2 and Halo Reach.. yeah .. speculating to death... the typical what-if-scenario.
For me Crysis 2 looks already better than Halo Reach of course. Simply technically Crysis 2 will blow anything away ob the Xbox 360. The problem is that Halo is the measure of all things on the xbox 360. And having a huge fan community behind it. For these guys Crysis 2 is a wannabe "king" of shooters. But almost none of them have experienced what the predecessors were capable of. So maybe Crysis 2 will convince some of these gamers and maybe not.

Really you cant compare the halo- to the Crysis-franchise at all.
Crysis 1 and warhead are Pc only titles and are mostly played by "hardcoe" - Pc gamers, according to the hardwarepower these guys have.
For a direct comparison you must compare Halo 2 with Crysis 1.. because these are the only titles which are both released on the same platform. You see? Its a no brainer!
For Crysis 2 and Halo Reach.. yeah .. speculating to death... the typical what-if-scenario.
For me Crysis 2 looks already better than Halo Reach of course. Simply technically Crysis 2 will blow anything away ob the Xbox 360. The problem is that Halo is the measure of all things on the xbox 360. And having a huge fan community behind it. For these guys Crysis 2 is a wannabe "king" of shooters. But almost none of them have experienced what the predecessors were capable of. So maybe Crysis 2 will convince some of these gamers and maybe not.

Let's just keep Crysis 2 alive, shall we. And try to avoid any violent confrontations.

Here's why.

Halo: Reach is by an order of magnitude better than any other first-person shooter game produced by any developer and if you disagree, read the rest of the post and see if you still think that way by the end of it. I really wish Crytek would use some multiplayer matchmaking features that Bungie has implemented in Reach:

* Punishes people who frequently quit in the middle of matches.

* Enables players to pit themselves against each other based on rank or player skill when searching for matches. Other console shooters do not allow for rank-based matchmaking and offer ranks merely to reflect the amount of time spent playing and display remaining time left to unlock the next weapon, not actual skill.

* Keeps track of players who are being muted by other players for being annoying or abusive on their microphones and automatically mutes them for you if they are encountered in a lobby.

*Allows you to filter matchmaking searches for: players who are chatty or quiet, people who prefer to play solo or team players, people who play to win or play for fun.

*Has variety of maps that include vehicular combat as well as maps designed for infantry only combat.

*Vehicle armor are somewhat balanced so that infantry can take them on without a heavy weapon, but at extreme risk.

*Does not have bad network code, so there is no averaged latency delay that you experience in similar first-person shooters.

* Has multiplayer co-operative campaigns from singleplayer as well as simple kill-off-massive-numbers-of-ai-versus-humans type game mode called Firefight.

The game has a built-in map editor. If you ever somehow get bored of the countless game-modes, you can jump in to the editor and make your own game. Examples (the following videos are admittedly actually entertaining to watch, even if you hate Halo with a passion):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGouR9wY2Jo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osjplXzxVM8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mRpD7S6BgM

For a console that has inferior hardware, this game runs smooth and has more built-in features than any other first-person shooter I have ever played (probably all of them, from the original Doom on PC to recent console shooters, I'm an old man).

The numerously populated Halo community, albeit mostly full of immature childeren, has produced some intelligent and entertaining media.
Proof: http://www.reddit.com/r/halo
Whereas the Crysis community is almost nonexistant outside of its official channels (such as gamesas and Crymod).
Proof: http://www.reddit.com/r/crysis

In conclusion, if anyone at Crytek and Electronic Arts is reading this, you will definitely be able to topple that Call of Duty monstrosity, but you will never (unfortunately) be able to beat Bungie at making an extremely fun game of the same caliber.

Regardless, I will still purchase the new product slated for March of 2011 because my money makes a bigger impact on your company than this post will ever make because opinions are never taken seriously, money talks.

Halo Reach is ****, and Crysis 2 will beat it!

CoD already has "beaten" Halo, in both sales and player count.
MW2, and Black ops, have record-braking sales, which is kind of a shame because they're such poor quality games.
Black ops is the most glitchy and laggy game I've ever seen.

The networking for campaign and Firefight in Halo is terrible.
It's a "one-world" system, which affects everything everyone does (except the host, naturally).

I, personally, stopped playing Reach just because of the "target bloom" and the " Armour Lock".
Those two things just ruin the whole game for me - the lock is easily abused, and is often used for nothing but a "get out of jail free card", and the bloom just makes every close-range fight random and bad for competitive gameplay.

But I agree in the sense that it is a quality product - very polished, very feature-rich, very good for the most part.

Crysis has no chance of beating either though.
Crysis will be a success, but the product-awareness throughout the public is poor compared to Halo or CoD.

It actually has little to do with the quality of the game.
That's my two cents anyway.

Halo: reach adds in features PC gamers have seen since battlefield 1942 is all. It's a decent game, but pretty old hat now. I played reach, and apart from being extremely crap in the story department (not helped by the huge amount of flaws that anyone who's ever read about the fall of reach will be grinding their teeth at) it just didn't do anything NEW.

However, halo multiplayer is definitely more interesting than COD overall The pacing overall is much better and relies far more on skill (comparatively, none are even within spitting distance of counter strike). However i'm not that interested in the multiplayer, and it'll be single player that determines whether the game is good enough personally. In that respect i say crysis 2 is shaping to give halo: reach a sound ass kicking.

Multiplayer i expect to be interesting however, based on the constant ability to swap between 3 modes. As a c console gamer this may not seem amazing at all 'zomg reach had armor modes hurrr' but as someone who plays crysis and knows how to use the suit, i can tell you that the suit is a fantastic tool and makes combat 25% more awesome than any other game out there.

Also, i don't give a damn about sales, and neither should anyone else except developers. X-factor is the most watch tv programme, but that does that make it better than QI? Hell no.

Killzone 2 has too the option to play by rank.

Crysis 2's only real competition for me is Killzone 3

For the record, I'm not talking about beating Halo with sales, I'm talking about beating it by making a quality product that is packed full-to-the-brim with features to garner attention and gain population. I highly doubt that Crytek UK can make a multiplayer game that can compare to Reach and not even come close (my reasoning is explained in my first post above, lazy heads).

Also. I. Freaking. Love. QI.

@ Jacoll: If you read my damn post, you would see that Killzone 2 ranking system does not reflect skill, only time played.

@The Comfy Chair;
Sales matter to people outside of the US/UK.
Player population is important, because we hate not being able to find local hosts.
But I wasn't saying the sales were important, I was just showing that CoD is, in fact, "beating" Halo.

I've never heard of "Ql" but whether or not it's a better show is purely up to personal opinion.
The majority opinion says X-Factor is the best show, apparently.

Halo Reach is ****, and Crysis 2 will beat it!
So true.

Halo Reach got:
Bad Maps...seriously bungie got only 6-7 MP Maps in 3 Years. Wtf
Grenade Spamming
Bloom doesnt work
Armor Abilities


Crysis 2 will beat this **** so easy.
Go back to ur b.net Forum

For the record, I'm not talking about beating Halo with sales, I'm talking about beating it by making a quality product that is packed full-to-the-brim with features to garner attention and gain population. I highly doubt that Crytek UK can make a multiplayer game that can compare to Reach and not even come close (my reasoning is explained in my first post above, lazy heads).

Also. I. Freaking. Love. QI.

@ Jacoll: If you read my damn post, you would see that Killzone 2 ranking system does not reflect skill, only time played.
In that case, then yes, Halo beats the crap out of CoD.

Yes. But Crysis 2 will never beat Halo. And I want it so badly to be better than Halo in features.
Sadly, Crytek is being influenced by its publisher to compete with its lowest common denominator, COD.

/merged with existing Halo vs Crysis 2 thread

@The Comfy Chair;
Sales matter to people outside of the US/UK.
Player population is important, because we hate not being able to find local hosts.
But I wasn't saying the sales were important, I was just showing that CoD is, in fact, "beating" Halo.

I've never heard of "Ql" but whether or not it's a better show is purely up to personal opinion.
The majority opinion says X-Factor is the best show, apparently.

The majority also chose hitler

The sales is indeed important for console players outside of the UK/US too of course, but for PC gamers there no difference really We can get good connection games with only 30 people playing online in a country!