things that imo what made crysis 1 cool that crysis 2 didnt have

-open world. crysis 2 wasnt that linear, but it just wasnt as cool in that aspect. i want options like putting c4 on a truck, jumping out and blowing people up

and for multiplayer

-vehicles, large maps, no killstreaks or perks aka something unique.

-map editor

most people agree?

edit: also i think multiplayer in crysis 2 is a disgrace. better then anything i could make but i expected better thats all

agree Crysis 2 was 100% copy of COD but with an higher Jump

all Devs need to remember that people wont buy a if they already have a game that does the same thing but better....
to me c2 in all was one hell of a downgrade....
from the nano suit to the MP wow not needed at all.....
even the story was just destroyed

if i was Crytek i would make a new Crysis and just close my eyes to C2 like it never happen at all..

an map editor?? well on PC it would be advance
but it can be done on consoles no problem
Farcry 1 on Xbox and Farcry 2 on 360 for EX..

now it cant be like PC but its better than nothing..

crysis2 has a sick online and maps.The perks help make the suit benefit your game style and killstreaks are there to reward you for your skills. the maps are well designed and are already big enough to snip and small enough to shotgun. what the new game really needs is more weapons, better servers, fix most of crysis 2 bugs and add more side things like gun camos dog tags and new gametypes.Thats all for online anyways

Tamaz why?
we already have COD for this gameplay
which i know it works,people play it,i can find games,that would be supported with patches, and its not the copy

The nanosuit differentiates Crysis 2 from CoD. Why? Cloaking and using armor are things that would change the tactics to engages enemy. Yet Crysis Wars seemed to be more effective way to put nanosuit into MP. But yeah, everything have 2 sides.

To answer your points, Crysis 2 seems to be a bit linear SP gameplay. Mp: There IS editor. Sandbox. And something unique: well, for me air stomp is quite a different maneuver from other game I have played. Can any other game rip off the HMG and walk around like a human tank? I don't know. And yeah, that's only my opinion.

It's quite a lot different than COD or others. What kind of conclusion is that? You have to leave all the tactics you use in others games in front of the door and get in Crysis because you have a f.cking nanosuit!

things that imo what made crysis 1 cool that crysis 2 didnt have

-open world. crysis 2 wasnt that linear, but it just wasnt as cool in that aspect. i want options like putting c4 on a truck, jumping out and blowing people up

• Crysis 2 was extremely linear. Crysis 1 had far superior options in approaching an objective. Better yet we didn't have some glowing yellow shapes pointing out the 2 alternate routes. In the original you were left on your own to fix your own route and method.
  
• We'd also need to see back the full amount of features available in the original. That means normal non-suit energy wasting sprint, fists, a proper speed mode, prone etc the list goes on. If Crytek can't figure out how to put all those features on console, then leave them out, but don't take them away from PC
  
• A PC focus is needed. This results in everyone getting a better game, and the PC players aren't stuck with the tiny maps that were given to us in Crysis 2.

and for multiplayer

-vehicles, large maps, no killstreaks or perks aka something unique.

-map editor

most people agree?

edit: also i think multiplayer in crysis 2 is a disgrace. better then anything i could make but i expected better thats all

• Larger maps
• Larger teams
• Nanosuit 1
• Vehicles
• No Killstreaks
• Better balancing
• No suit modules/severely restricted suit modules. If they're going to be in, they need to be minor improvements which have a non gamechanging effect. This was not the case with the modules in C2, which pretty much dictated your available playstyles.

Think more 'Crysis Wars' and less 'CoD'. While there are some novelty differences from the latter, the tactics, map size and weapon handling are remarkably similar.

I would like the mp for Crysis 3 to be more Crysis and less CoD.

I would like the mp for Crysis 3 to be more Crysis and less CoD.

Crysis multiplayer beforehand was very similar to that of the popular Battlefield series. They have never had their own multiplayer model.

However, that being said the Battlefield modelled multiplayer was FAR superior to the CoD modelled multiplayer.

Multiplayer I could not give 2 ****s about

Single player I agree with that we need larger action bubbles and less hand holding but full on open world no. Mind you I am not saying open world games svck but I'd prefer larger bubbles and a more cinematically focused experience. It is completely a matter of tastes like preferring Biowar'e model RPGs as opposed to Bethesda's model RPGs. Also we need to be given the option to pick our weapons (from a list of unlocked weapons or some such) BEFORE the level starts in order to increase replayability like Perfect Dark zero and The last couple of Resident Evils....this "hey, you lost your weapons on the way, here's a crappy pistol and a subpar rifle" crap needs to stop

Edit: Mikey you sound like a broken record now. Cut the PC elitismand give it a rest, you are getting boring.

Edit: Mikey you sound like a broken record now. Cut the PC elitismand give it a rest, you are getting boring.
I have said nothing PC elitist, only compared facts and made the comment that the next Crysis should be PC focused in the same way as BF3 is.

That makes the game better for everybody in the long run.

If this makes you uncomfortable or insecure I suggest you grow a thicker skin.

insecure? no, annoyed by the repetition? yeah

Besides the next Crysis might very well be released at the dawn of the new generation of consoles and on top of that even be even more console centric given how Crytek and MS are growing closer and closer by the month. Either way the differences between the various versions will be minimal just like in Oblivion during the 360's infancy.

Also stating that a game will be better for everyone in the long run if PC centric is just an opinion, not a fact. Do not flatter yourself, you are not threatening in your statements Mikey, you are merely annoying.

@crimzontearz

I think Mikey is right about the Pc as a leadplatform.
Its better to push the limits on the strongest platform and give weaker hardware the option to scale down.
This way you can trust that the strongest machine gets the best result as the others get the results they can handle.There is no good or reasonable argument for a console being the leadplatform.

And if Crytek decides to fit in Bungies footsteps and become Microsofts bich ..than all hope is lost for me in terms of Crytek and their development for Pcs. I will rather look forward to what DICE can deliver in the future.

and I think the opposite. Besides if Euclideon's voxel tech comes to fruition in the next generation no one will care.

Furthermore MS is a better developer to work for than EA will ever be. I crytek becomes the new Bungie (spiritually) they will have a crapload of resouces thrown at them and the insurance no one will force them to rush a game...flagship titles cannot be rushed just ask Epic and 343 industries

insecure? no, annoyed by the repetition? yeah

Besides the next Crysis might very well be released at the dawn of the new generation of consoles and on top of that even be even more console centric given how Crytek and MS are growing closer and closer by the month. Either way the differences between the various versions will be minimal just like in Oblivion during the 360's infancy.

Also stating that a game will be better for everyone in the long run if PC centric is just an opinion, not a fact. Do not flatter yourself, you are not threatening in your statements Mikey, you are merely annoying.

It is absolutely a fact that a PC lead game will be better for everyone.

Don't kid yourself, the next gen of consoles will not be anywhere near the level of mid-high end PCs at launch. The parts now are too big, too expensive and run too hot to be included in consoles, which as a selling point need to be smaller and cheaper than PCs. Without being the same size, the parts would run way too hot even if they could be fitted in the chassis.

By building the game on the strongest platform and scaling it back the game ends up bigger and better for everyone. Consoles benefit from the technological advancements on PC, and PC isn't held back by consoles.

Just look at Crysis 2, and look at BF3 on release. You'll soon see which developer got it right.

EDIT: That being said, after Crysis 2, Crytek may not have a choice but to stay with the consoles. Much of the PC audience has practically written them off now.

they said the same thing aboutthis generation ofconsoles and yet you know exactly that at launch the hardware on a 360 was not even available yet on the market. MS will do the same thing as they did last time....custom made hardware specifically for the console

again

by next gen no one will care if Euclideon's voxel tech ends up working as advertised

A game needs to play up to the strenghts of each platforms, simply downgrading for static platforms is counter productive and apparently several SHs think so too

TC you forgot a non-glitched the $%^& out game.

they said the same thing aboutthis generation ofconsoles and yet you know exactly that at launch the hardware on a 360 was not even available yet on the market. MS will do the same thing as they did last time....custom made hardware specifically for the console
Yeah, they'll make a machine which is as cheap as possible for them to produce. The Xbox360 has 512mb RAM. You'll be lucky if the next one has more than 1GB. For a GPU you won't get anything anywhere near high end PC levels (GTX570/580) because they're too big and too hot to fit inside a console shell.

Speculate all you want but it's a fact waiting to be established.
by next gen no one will care if Euclideon's voxel tech ends up working as advertised

A game needs to play up to the strenghts of each platforms, simply downgrading for static platforms is counter productive and apparently several SHs think so too
Lol you have no idea what you're talking about. What is counter productive is holding back technological advancement by limiting a game to the capabilities of the weakest platform. DICE have even stated that holding the PC as the lead platform has allowed them to better develop for consoles as a consequence.

Besides, within a few years console gaming will die off in favour of onlive, and other cloud-based platforms. That way gamers can have medium PC settings without needing much in the way of PC hardware, only a decent internet connection.

I guess the question that is being missed here is, "is it fun to play?"
We can argue all the things that were in Cry1 vs. Cry2 and how much better each one is versus the other, but! would Cry3 be a great play?
Campaign-
How in-depth wrap-up do we want the story? Is it the end of the story? Are the action sequences in the campaign keeping you interested and thinking "that was sooo cool to watch/do!"? Is it co-op'd?
Multiplayer-
Would we want a CoD style MP or a more ingenuitive MP? I personally felt the the Crysis 2 MP was a completely different beast than the CoD MP. I've prestige'd MW2 and Black Ops (meaning I play them thoroughly, I'm not bragging) and I've rebooted in Crysis 2, trust me, they are totally different plays. The tactics I approach Crysis2 with are nothing like the tactics I use when playing CoD. Besides just needing slightly better hit detection and server signal strength Cry2 MP is a sick play for PS3 & 360. No hate on it form me. If anything I like it better than CoD because it's faster.

I haven't played Crysis 1 and I'm thrilled that the campaign will be coming to console. PC's are/can be great big powerful things, but I am a professional Audio Tech and have to use MAC's so gaming is just NOT and option on my computers... thank god for consoles or I NEVER would have played and loved this game.
As for a Crysis 3; I would just love to see a prone function, and more aerial based attacks (loved power stomp... death from above) 'cause no one ever looks up! Some more strategic weapons rather than just point n' shoot and nood-tubes. It could also use some more equipment like gear, bubble shields, poison gases, etc. and more visor functions for tactical useage. Also maybe even reboot stacking of perks (if you reboot you can permanently attach 1 perk to your suit). Anything to un-level the playing field and keep play dynamic.

I guess the question that is being missed here is, "is it fun to play?"
We can argue all the things that were in Cry1 vs. Cry2 and how much better each one is versus the other, but! would Cry3 be a great play?
Campaign-
How in-depth wrap-up do we want the story? Is it the end of the story? Are the action sequences in the campaign keeping you interested and thinking "that was sooo cool to watch/do!"? Is it co-op'd?
Multiplayer-
Would we want a CoD style MP or a more ingenuitive MP? I personally felt the the Crysis 2 MP was a completely different beast than the CoD MP. I've prestige'd MW2 and Black Ops (meaning I play them thoroughly, I'm not bragging) and I've rebooted in Crysis 2, trust me, they are totally different plays. The tactics I approach Crysis2 with are nothing like the tactics I use when playing CoD. Besides just needing slightly better hit detection and server signal strength Cry2 MP is a sick play for PS3 & 360. No hate on it form me. If anything I like it better than CoD because it's faster.

I haven't played Crysis 1 and I'm thrilled that the campaign will be coming to console. PC's are/can be great big powerful things, but I am a professional Audio Tech and have to use MAC's so gaming is just NOT and option on my computers... thank god for consoles or I NEVER would have played and loved this game.
As for a Crysis 3; I would just love to see a prone function, and more aerial based attacks (loved power stomp... death from above) 'cause no one ever looks up! Some more strategic weapons rather than just point n' shoot and nood-tubes. It could also use some more equipment like gear, bubble shields, poison gases, etc. and more visor functions for tactical useage. Also maybe even reboot stacking of perks (if you reboot you can permanently attach 1 perk to your suit). Anything to un-level the playing field and keep play dynamic.
You want to un-level the playing field? Are you crazy?

The perk system is skewed as it is.

If you had ever played Crysis Wars you would understand why Crysis 2 MP was so bad. Wars had balance issues (you could fit a laser sight on an OHK sniper rifle) but weapons were found on the map, and so everybody had access to them. Everybody also had identical suit abilities and access to vehicles, yes vehicles!

Crysis wars is to Battlefield and Crysis 2 is to CoD. It's that simple. Beyond the superficial additions, they both shared core gameplay elements with their respective comparisons.

they said the same thing aboutthis generation ofconsoles and yet you know exactly that at launch the hardware on a 360 was not even available yet on the market. MS will do the same thing as they did last time....custom made hardware specifically for the console
Yeah, they'll make a machine which is as cheap as possible for them to produce. The Xbox360 has 512mb RAM. You'll be lucky if the next one has more than 1GB. For a GPU you won't get anything anywhere near high end PC levels (GTX570/580) because they're too big and too hot to fit inside a console shell.

Speculate all you want but it's a fact waiting to be established.
by next gen no one will care if Euclideon's voxel tech ends up working as advertised

A game needs to play up to the strenghts of each platforms, simply downgrading for static platforms is counter productive and apparently several SHs think so too
Lol you have no idea what you're talking about. What is counter productive is holding back technological advancement by limiting a game to the capabilities of the weakest platform. DICE have even stated that holding the PC as the lead platform has allowed them to better develop for consoles as a consequence.

Besides, within a few years console gaming will die off in favour of onlive, and other cloud-based platforms. That way gamers can have medium PC settings without needing much in the way of PC hardware, only a decent internet connection.

Actually MS doubled the RAM on the 360 -thus spending a truckload of extra money) solely because Epic asked them to for the GoW series.

Miniaturization and custom hardware are wonderful things, you can speculate, as well, all you want mikey but last console iteration proved that MS and Sony realized that a good strategy was to build consoles with hardware ahead of the PC curve at launch to keep them alive longer. and if in the future cloud based games will be the standard then all you need is a next iteration of consoles with decent hardware and a great internet connection thus I do not see why console gaming should die at al.

if I do not know what I am talking about and DICE apparently has found the winning strategy/phylosphy then we will see about that in the near future now won't we?

....MS and Sony realized that a good strategy was to build consoles with hardware ahead of the PC curve at launch to keep them alive longer.

Thats just wrong! The Pc hardware was way ahead when the Ps3 hit the market for example. The GTX 8800 and the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperformed the Ps3 by far and were already released @ that time! Dont sell your opinions as facts!

....MS and Sony realized that a good strategy was to build consoles with hardware ahead of the PC curve at launch to keep them alive longer.

Thats just wrong! The Pc hardware was way ahead when the Ps3 hit the market for example. The GTX 8800 and the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperformed the Ps3 by far and were already released @ that time! Dont sell your opinions as facts! uhm...actually I was more talking about the 3 core GPU and the Cell

BUT

the GTX 8800 was released in november of 06 and the 360 was released in november of 05 so...yeah get YOUR facts straight

prior to that the hardware on consoles was ahead of the curve, sure, only for one year but when the PS2 and original Xbox came out their hardware was not ahead of the curve, hell it was not even high end it was mediocre at best

In fairness, Crimson does have a point that the last gen of consoles were comparible to PC power at launch, but things have advanced hugely since then, and frankly you'd have to be a fool to think consoles could become anywhere near PC power now, and keep within their market slot.

..and as for miniaturisation, by the time hardware developers have figured out how to properly miniaturise something, there are already more powerful pieces of hardware on the market.

Moore's Law is relevant to this discussion. Even if consoles were to be comparible to PCs at launch, the growth of computer hardware would still render them obsolete extremely quickly.

@ Crimzon

Hey buddy people who can read have an clear advantage.
My example included the PS3 and NOT the 360!

But hey lets have a look at the 360 then.. It came out in late 2005 22. November in the USA.
It uses a IBM 3 cored powerpcstrucured CPU with 3,2 GHZ. As GPU it uses a special ATI chip with 500 MHz.

The Radeon X1300 Pro came out in Oktober 2005 with 600 Mhz.
On the 19. April the Intel Pentium Extreme Edition (Smithfield) with 3,2 GHz came out. Its "only" a Dualcore but as multithreading wasnt popular in gaming these days it doesnt really matter that it has one core less than the IBM one.

So when it comes to gaming the Pc was also ahead of the Xbox360.

By the way... you cant compare PC CPUs with powerpc structured CPUs like IBM created for the Xbox and the Ps3. IBMs processors are curiously enough made for servers and mainframe computers. Their strenghts arent multimedia and games... but more calculating math and breaking codes or something like that. For example @ linpack Benchmarks the CELL and the 3,6 GHz Intel Pentium 4 are almost equal .