personally, i never liked power struggle, you say you use tactics? more like going into speed mode, run into a room, drop a grenade, run again. I could never be that stealthy, because they made cloak useless, unless your sniping. Vehicles were never as fun for me either, i was always flying around in circles with the attack helicopter, trying to find something to shoot, but everyone hides before i can see em. then theres the hackers, it seems these days you cant play a game in crysis without someone using the flying hack as well as the "unlimited c4" id spawn in a bunker, only for it to be blown to kingdom kom. personally, from what ive seen in crysis 2, people seem to atually use stealth tactics, because crytek has integrated them very nicely into the game with stealth kills, and "power kills". you people are probably very used to having these big sandboxish maps, well there wont be too much of that, its very tight and claustrophobic, which.. believe it or not, requires some real stealth/actionhero ****. and theres nothing percise about the scar in crysis 1 anymore, everyone just sprays and prays, occasionally throwing a grenade and then running to cover, crysis 2 seems to have better reflex aiming which is crucial. theyl probably have a couple game modes that allow a 10 v 10 or more, it wont be 64 people, but wth. crysis 2 seems to have a lot going for it right now, and i dont think we have enough info to say consoles are killing crysis

personally, i never liked power struggle, you say you use tactics? more like going into speed mode, run into a room, drop a grenade, run again. I could never be that stealthy, because they made cloak useless, unless your sniping. Vehicles were never as fun for me either, i was always flying around in circles with the attack helicopter, trying to find something to shoot, but everyone hides before i can see em. then theres the hackers, it seems these days you cant play a game in crysis without someone using the flying hack as well as the "unlimited c4" id spawn in a bunker, only for it to be blown to kingdom kom. personally, from what ive seen in crysis 2, people seem to atually use stealth tactics, because crytek has integrated them very nicely into the game with stealth kills, and "power kills". you people are probably very used to having these big sandboxish maps, well there wont be too much of that, its very tight and claustrophobic, which.. believe it or not, requires some real stealth/actionhero ****. and theres nothing percise about the scar in crysis 1 anymore, everyone just sprays and prays, occasionally throwing a grenade and then running to cover, crysis 2 seems to have better reflex aiming which is crucial. theyl probably have a couple game modes that allow a 10 v 10 or more, it wont be 64 people, but wth. crysis 2 seems to have a lot going for it right now, and i dont think we have enough info to say consoles are killing crysis

Hey man its not our proglem you cant frag in Crysis. You can give a tool to anybody that does not mean anybody can use it properly (hahaha btw do you play console much? your thinking strikes me as a console gamer ;p sorry)

We all know consoles are setting game back. Crytek’s CEO Cervat Yerli said “As long as the current console generation exists and as long as we keep pushing the PC as well, the more difficult it will be to really get the benefit of both,” adding that “PC is easily a generation ahead right now. With 360 and PS3, we believe the quality of the games beyond Crysis 2 and other CryEngine developments will be pretty much limited to what their creative expressions is, what the content is. You won’t be able to squeeze more juice from these rocks.”

http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/11/25/crytek-say-%e2%80%9cpc-is-easily-a-generation-ahead-being-held-back-by-consoles/

i guess i am a "console gamer" ( i hate that term, im a gamer, what i play on dosnt matter.), but i play both console and pc. pc may have the edge on graphics. but the pc games i see today dont seem as original and cool as you would expect from what you hear about pc these days. i dont give a crap about all this "console gameing is holding video games back" console games are FUN, their graphics: meh, but technology is definantly helping. but look at CoD, Killzone, Halo, Battlefield, Need for speed, Gran torismo, Gears, and assasins creed. sure, they may have scripted water effects, and lack of tools as far as tactics, and they have hardly any polygons in their small objects, but they are some of the best damn games ever made. its time consoles get some respect from pc gamers. Im not saying consoles dont have to step their game up either, they need faster frame rates and better graphics in general. if we stop fighting about it, then maybe pc and consoles could combine their efforts, to make quality games, that run great, that look great, that play great, and are easily accessible. phew. now lets get back on topic.

My mom bought me an xbox and I tried to play it for a week but it was too boring so I told her to return it.

I personaly like the idea of 6 vs 6, becaus then there will be less raping and stuff BUT this is crysis and crysis is unique for its massive maps, planes, choppers, many tanks and vehicles and alot of players!!! And they said that in crysis 2 there will be more Strategy between players, then same was told about bc2 and there isn't any Strategy only brainless shooting like in mw2!
if i would want to play 6 vs 6 i would buy MW2.

More players does not equal to a better game.

However, more players does equal to a more fun game.

Depends entirely on the map. Bad company 2 is 55.7% more awesome with 32 players. But games with small maps (like halo, for the most part) benefit with smaller skirmishes.

If nothing else, battlefield 3 will quench my multiplayer carnage thirst. Plus, to be honest, unless there's co-op with guild wars 2 and b3 crysis 2 won't be played online! Crysis 2 will hopefully sit along crysis 1 as an awesome pretty game with a nice story i can just play through and just get immersed in the beauty of it all.

i guess i am a "console gamer" ( i hate that term, im a gamer, what i play on dosnt matter.), but i play both console and pc. pc may have the edge on graphics. but the pc games i see today dont seem as original and cool as you would expect from what you hear about pc these days. i dont give a crap about all this "console gameing is holding video games back" console games are FUN, their graphics: meh, but technology is definantly helping. but look at CoD, Killzone, Halo, Battlefield, Need for speed, Gran torismo, Gears, and assasins creed. sure, they may have scripted water effects, and lack of tools as far as tactics, and they have hardly any polygons in their small objects, but they are some of the best damn games ever made. its time consoles get some respect from pc gamers. Im not saying consoles dont have to step their game up either, they need faster frame rates and better graphics in general. if we stop fighting about it, then maybe pc and consoles could combine their efforts, to make quality games, that run great, that look great, that play great, and are easily accessible. phew. now lets get back on topic.

Thank you.

I agree with the console vs. pc is annoying.

i total disagree with the concept that current games are 'good enough'. The last 3 years have brought nothing but anol leakage except for a few sparkling gems (such as crysis, hl2:ep2,civ5,uncharted2 to name about half). A significant amount of that can be attributed to no wiggle room with what developers have to work with tech wise

'oooh another brown ue3 game? yipee *yawn*.

Time for a new console generation. Bored now, and so should you. Good enough is not humanity, good enough is lazy. NO ONE should just sit back and not strive for better, not a single person. Black and white tv's were good enough, dying of old age at 24 was good enough, racism, sixism and homophobia were good enough. I just guess until someone shows them better the mindless drones connected to their life support of media, fast food and their 'good enough's' won't sit up and realise it.

Have you really been robbed of your humanity that much?

Meh, i should probably eventually get into the games industry, i'm definitely padantic enough to make something damn good but still not be happy until every one of those grass blades moves just perfect!

i guess i am a "console gamer" ( i hate that term, im a gamer, what i play on dosnt matter.), but i play both console and pc. pc may have the edge on graphics. but the pc games i see today dont seem as original and cool as you would expect from what you hear about pc these days. i dont give a crap about all this "console gameing is holding video games back" console games are FUN, their graphics: meh, but technology is definantly helping. but look at CoD, Killzone, Halo, Battlefield, Need for speed, Gran torismo, Gears, and assasins creed. sure, they may have scripted water effects, and lack of tools as far as tactics, and they have hardly any polygons in their small objects, but they are some of the best damn games ever made. its time consoles get some respect from pc gamers. Im not saying consoles dont have to step their game up either, they need faster frame rates and better graphics in general. if we stop fighting about it, then maybe pc and consoles could combine their efforts, to make quality games, that run great, that look great, that play great, and are easily accessible. phew. now lets get back on topic.

Thank you.
i was waiting for someone to acknowledge my idea of peace and love
:)

I agree with the console vs. pc is annoying.

i total disagree with the concept that current games are 'good enough'. The last 3 years have brought nothing but anol leakage except for a few sparkling gems (such as crysis, hl2:ep2,civ5,uncharted2 to name about half). A significant amount of that can be attributed to no wiggle room with what developers have to work with tech wise

'oooh another brown ue3 game? yipee *yawn*.

Time for a new console generation. Bored now, and so should you. Good enough is not humanity, good enough is lazy. NO ONE should just sit back and not strive for better, not a single person. Black and white tv's were good enough, dying of old age at 24 was good enough, racism, sixism and homophobia were good enough. I just guess until someone shows them better the mindless drones connected to their life support of media, fast food and their 'good enough's' won't sit up and realise it.

Have you really been robbed of your humanity that much?

Meh, i should probably eventually get into the games industry, i'm definitely padantic enough to make something damn good but still not be happy until every one of those grass blades moves just perfect!
nice breh, you should be a speechwriter.

Better yet, a Declarator! people will listen for sure.!

thats the spirit

6v6 isn't problem at all. Power Stuggle can be part of future DLC, for example, or recreated by big comunity. I looking for 12v12 maps and bigger, but if not it's ok. Quality is only matter.

@the Comfy Chair: it would be nice to have a new generation consoles. It would also be nice to win the jackpot... However both are unrealistic. You cannot develop a console without spending billions of dollars. If they would make a new console every 3/4 year you would pay more than double for your console and the games. Would you prefer that? I don't... And for sure, there is no market for it.

The xbox 360 came out 5 and a bit years ago, not 3 years ago

consoles, at best, should last 5 years as a primary development platform, as the tech available is now about 12-16 times more powerful for graphics cards. I've no problem with an individual console being supported, look at the ps2. But as a platform designed to be 'the cutting edge', the current consoles are too old and too decrepid.

It's not the tech that irritates me as much as the ignorant users who sit their blatantly believing that 'new tech wouldn't make games better', or even significantly. I propose that anyone here in such a mindset go and pick up san andreas, or any last gen game on the ps2/xbox and put it in their current gen console for comparison. See that difference (not only in graphics but in gameplay enabled)? The difference to current consoles and the tech available is easily that gulf and then some.

Finally, the market is definitely there (and is, in fact, huge). Plenty of sheep went out to buy the new xbox 360 slim to replace their old xbox's just because they were 'new'. The market for a new console is bigger than what we had in 2005, so there's no reason to delay another. It's just because the console manufacturers can get away with it to cash in more.

Why can they get away with it? because people continue to buy the shovelware put out by lazy developers and publishers, so why do they need to change? It'd be like scrapping the x-factor, it's terrible and mind boggling bad but still popular as it's 'safe'. CoD: Black ops was the biggest mockery of console gaming i've ever seen and, here's the best thing, the playerbase lapped it up. A best seller with no notable changes and an overall worse game than a game that came 3 years previously. It's appalling. Then companies like activision have the balls to blame platforms like the PC of having 'piracy' for the reason for reduced sales, and not the fact that their game is sub-standard in every way. (It should be noted that crysis did deserve better sales, but it still sold very well for a game considered so demanding and with quite niche gameplay - people like safe, people like corridors dressed as the outside world, means they can't make mistakes and get lost).

Also, i find your comparison to a new console being equivalent to winning some kind of luck based prize perplexing. In fact, a new console i akin to already having the winning lottery ticket, but not being bothered to cash it in. The prize is their if you're willing to to put in the effort. If every console player this year decided that 'we're bored of tripe', and stopped buying the shovelware like CoD, we'd likely see a new console generation in 2012.

It's not the tech that irritates me as much as the ignorant users who sit their blatantly believing that 'new tech wouldn't make games better'

But they absolutely right. Designers is first, technologies is second. No doubt.

Yet if you give a developer better tools they make a far better game than if they didn't have them, without doubt. Would mass effect 2 have been regarded as such an 'epic' if it were in 8 bit colour with sprites? Unlikely. One of the first things games designers say every generation is 'we've been finally able to do things we've only dreamed about before'. Sure, it's a little cliche, but it's true. Most of the details (and even many major features) we see in current games would not have been possible in the previous generation, and the next generation will also bring large jumps in what the developers can acheive.

Advancement of tech is also not just limited to some extra 'shinies' either. it is a common and understandable misunderstanding. It increases our ability to interact with a game world (and create it), further enhancing the beauty of a game in many ways. This, of course, can usually be done a generation in advance by good designers in some form (for example, DICE found a way to bring a form of dynamic destruction to this generation of consoles, with some smoke [especially smoke] and light tricks), but the true affects of which become apparent the generation after (for example, true gpu based physics in a next console generation, continuing with the destruction theme, could easily allow for walls to be truly destroyed in a physically accurate fashion - imagine being able to poke a single brick out of a wall to fire from in a game for example, or poking out the wrong ones and cause it come crumbling down).

However, it is as always difficult to convince people of such things before the console generations are announced. It has always happened, and will continue to in the future:

'How can the xbox 2 be better than the xbox 1? we don't need it, no make it go away, new new argh not the new, nooooo, do not want. Oh, it's awesome, want want. Not the xbox 3, no no do not want, no not new stuff argh, no, oh it's awesome! want want' *repeat until death*

The companies making the consoles are just exploiting this fact of human intertia with regards to 'the new' to strain some more money out of their playerbase for their shareholders, just a pity it's affecting the quality of games we should be seeing.

On the plus side of it all, at least gaming has become cheaper. Well, not really, console players now spend ￡40 or so for every game, and xbox 360 players obviously pay for LIVE. But PC gaming is ridiculously cheap by comparison (standard PC you'd buy for the house anyway + ￡50 and viola! you've got a gaming PC, although building would be far more effective at making an awesome PC for the same price).

I agreed with good game design and good technology is almost better than only game design, because really nice games with great design is very few.

"Number of quality" is only come in next gen, for sure. This questions isn't have a reason for disput. IMHO.

@Comfychair: I agree the tech is available and I know the Xbox360 is older then 3 years. However I said a new console every 3/4 year is financialy very difficult. Sony only started making profit on each PS3 console last year. That means they have to make up for a few year of losses first.
That also means that if you want a new generation console every 3/4 year it won't cost you 350 dollar, but 700 or more. Would you still be interested then? A lot of people probably won't be. Also to make up for the losses they will probably increase the prices for games even more.

Also you say: if everyone stops buying games for this generation, we will have the new one in 2012. This will probably also not be true. You really think if Sony and Microsoft don't get any revenues anymore, they will continu to develop new generations which costs billions?

I think this whole discussion is inherent to the consoles. If you want the best gameplay with every innovation there is on hardware, you should invest in a PC.

I do get your point but still, it is unlikely the console manufacturers will release a new console every 3/4 years.
I would love it to be true, but it's just a dream.

Edit: And in this I haven't even discussed the engine and game building companies, which will to develop new engines and games everytime... How much time and money that will cost you think? A new engine 1,5-2 years, a AAA title at least 1,5 years...

They could always try making cheaper consoles The problem inherent with the 360 and ps3 is that they tried too hard to make them keep up with the PC in terms of tech. Which caused them to overshoot and spend too much on components, hence their predicament.

I feel a better solution would be to go for cheaper midrange parts more frequently (therefore keeping prices down and the effect of stagnation down too). This does seem to be the case of the next generation (microsoft going for a fusion II APU - a midrange PC part combining a cpu and gpu which will come in around 2012/3), which is interesting. But obviously very frustrating waiting for it!

it will obviously mean that there will be a gulf between pc and console permanently, and to be honest i see this generation is being the last of the true cross platform (with PC's becoming so, so much more powerful and pc gaming booming under steam). But it will also mean that consoles get to see graphical jumps every few years (5 years is about a good length of time) as opposed to being stagnant for a few of those years

Also, as you may have guessed from my view on the whole situation that i do primarily play on PC (now). But it's very irritating that the consoles just won't budge in terms of the games being played, which historically required a new generation to come along and kick it in the ass. I totally gave up hope on my xbox after halo: reach

Roll on the next generation though!

I am fine with consoles releasing every five years, my only issue is that there have been many indications that the current generation of consoles will not be replaced until they have had a life span of 7 years or maybe even 10. 0.0

Cross-Platform games are becoming extremely difficult to create and not bottleneck design opportunities (even one year ago it became difficult), I cannot imagine what it would be like if we had to deal with the same generation another 4 years from now and developers trying to go cross-platform.

I actually don't mind this as much. Camping comes from the players not the amount of them in a game? Campers are in every game whether its 4v4 or 16v16. The thing i hated most about Crysis multiplayer in the original was the stupid big maps that ended up being tank vs tank matches...lame! That's all anyone ever played and it wasn't a shooter more of a Battlefield 2 style game. I have a damn Nano suit and want to use the thing! I like the idea of the fast paced as well, this will help as the first Crysis it took forever to kill people that you have to adjust the setting in creating a new game. I don't like how fast you die in COD and i like that it takes a bit longer than that in this new Crysis. There approach to me seems to be what works best - a little bit of Halo and a little of COD "best of both worlds for all the FPS wars going on" this seems to fit right in between so it's a good balance for everyone. I prefer smaller to medium sized maps to have strategy with my team mates and have call points of the map not some huge map that takes 10 minutes to get to the other end and need a vehicle BORING! keep up the good work Crytek and please release a PC demo so i know if i need to upgrade before release!

I actually don't mind this as much. Camping comes from the players not the amount of them in a game? Campers are in every game whether its 4v4 or 16v16. The thing i hated most about Crysis multiplayer in the original was the stupid big maps that ended up being tank vs tank matches...lame! That's all anyone ever played and it wasn't a shooter more of a Battlefield 2 style game. I have a damn Nano suit and want to use the thing! I like the idea of the fast paced as well, this will help as the first Crysis it took forever to kill people that you have to adjust the setting in creating a new game. I don't like how fast you die in COD and i like that it takes a bit longer than that in this new Crysis. There approach to me seems to be what works best - a little bit of Halo and a little of COD "best of both worlds for all the FPS wars going on" this seems to fit right in between so it's a good balance for everyone. I prefer smaller to medium sized maps to have strategy with my team mates and have call points of the map not some huge map that takes 10 minutes to get to the other end and need a vehicle BORING! keep up the good work Crytek and please release a PC demo so i know if i need to upgrade before release!

Battlefield 2 style... I liked that a lot about Crysis. I just wish that the original Crysis had better support and some bomber/fighter jets, and the game would have been 100% amazing.

This 6on6 crap is killing me. I originally bought Crysis for the epic Power Struggle maps with 32 players, the only reason I am giving Crysis 2 a chance is because of the original's ability to provide truly largescale battles that only one other franchise could do right... I was hoping for 64 players BATTLES for Crysis 2 originally on larger maps, refined vehicle combat and an emphasis on destructive environments, not these 12 player SKIRMISHES. Infantry was needed to clear the area and capture the objectives with some great Nanosuit tactics, the vehicle role in Crysis is where the other fun was at with vtol vs. vtol battles in epic air style joystick combat that few other games can satisfy... Savanna and Battleground TIA maps being so popular was a clear indicator of what Crysis fans liked.

Savanna and Battleground TIA maps being so popular was a clear indicator of what Crysis fans liked.

Yes, but they're just puny pc players who enabled crytek to make a sequel, y'know, the fans. Who cares about them? I mean, they want large scale battles with teamwork and a sense of achievment when they win.

Whereas Everyone knows that 'console players'* love 6v6 games like halo & cod and don't like teamwork, only insta-gratification pacman style gameplay where each kill is based on luck and who saw each other first. With aimbots built in.

Guess who got what they wanted?

*The large demographic that is 12-16 years old that is, i'm sure there are plenty of console players wanting the teamwork experience, but then again, they give up and go to PC in the end.