I get it, Crysis and Crytek for that matter were a PC game and a PC company. But MOVE ON. That's the past. All over the forum, I hear "Crytek is a sellout", "consoles brought the downfall of an amazing company", "Crysis 2 is a slap in the face to crysis". You want to know why Crysis 2 is so different from the original? Its not because of consoles (well, to a certain extent), its because developers are CREATIVE.

What company (besides Treyarch and Infinity Ward) sticks to the same style game after game? Crytek, like most other developers, experiment with their style. Almost every developer does it. Dragon Age: Origins, you're a Grey Warden saving the world. Dragon Age 2, your a nobody protecting your family and rising to the top. You're in a pawn in a much bigger plot. Dragon Age 3. Bioware is taking the best of Origins and 2.

Take Halo for example. 1,2, & 3 were pretty much the same style/gameplay. Then comes along ODST and Reach, and their different. Halo 4? It will be different. Its the same thing Crytek is doing. Crysis came. Open world, blah blah. Then Crysis 2 came. And it was different. Now, Crysis 3 is a year away and because it has SOME similarities to C2, a lot of you are complaining.

Crytek is giving you the best of 1 and 2. Most of you (I guess all of you to be honest) enjoyed the open world of Crysis 1. Well, look. Crytek is doing their best to give you as much of that as they can to you in Crysis 3. Will it be anywhere near the level of open world-ness in Crysis 1? No, this is one of the down sides of developing for current generation consoles. Yes, it looks like Crysis 2. Of course it does. Crysis 2 looks different from Crysis 1 because an entire new game engine was used. That's not the case in Crysis 3. Their using the same engine as Crysis 2. Only this time its been updated some.

A lot of you are complaining that 2 years is not enough time for development. I think I can explain this best with an example of Assassin's Creed. Assassin's Creed is/was (can't be sure after 3 comes out) a yearly release game. But Ubisoft was almost simultaneously working on each release. Its the same case with Crysis 3. Crytek confirmed the story was done when Crysis was just released. This obviously means they started working on Crysis 3 when the story for Crysis 2 was done, which puts the development time at least 3 years. You guys should be happy Crytek doesn't make Crysis 3 a console exclusive because of YOUR piracy rates.

Long rant post but too many of you (a lot of you being pc gamers) complain about how Crysis 3 looks like Crysis 2/2.5, how it'll be the same, blah blah, when there's obvious reasons for each complaint. People really DON'T like change. (Guess that's why so many of us like COD)

People want games to be developed for PC first and then ported over to consoles!

P.S. None likes COD

Which is exactly the problem. Any way you look at it, developers are business first. Developing for PC first/only isn't as profitable. Popular and better are two different roads that rarely mingle. Besides for a company that is always trying to push graphic limits, there aren't a lot of people with $2000 computers powerfully enough to actually PLAY it. And you're lying to yourself if you really believe no one likes cod. Are there better shooters than cod? Yes. Does cod still have a bigger fanbase? Yes. Its like asking why people like iphones when there are much better phones.

I get it, Crysis and Crytek for that matter were a PC game and a PC company. But MOVE ON. That's the past. All over the forum, I hear "Crytek is a sellout", "consoles brought the downfall of an amazing company", "Crysis 2 is a slap in the face to crysis". You want to know why Crysis 2 is so different from the original? Its not because of consoles (well, to a certain extent), its because developers are CREATIVE.

If they wanted to make something DIFFERENT than CRYSIS, just make a new IP for christ's sake. Also we don't mind if Crytek develops for consoles. We mind if consoles constrain PC development, as if you do it the other way around, nobody loses. Just takes some extra time (Crysis 1 for consoles).

What company (besides Treyarch and Infinity Ward) sticks to the same style game after game? Crytek, like most other developers, experiment with their style. Almost every developer does it. Dragon Age: Origins, you're a Grey Warden saving the world. Dragon Age 2, your a nobody protecting your family and rising to the top. You're in a pawn in a much bigger plot. Dragon Age 3. Bioware is taking the best of Origins and 2.

You're "someone" in all of your examples. You're literally nobody in Crysis 2. Just a name. Just the moniker "Alcatraz". Absolutely zero personality. And don't give me the "it's supposed to be the gamer!" excuse: The problem is that the channel which connects you to Alcatraz is nonexistant. When I play Deus Ex, I AM Adam Jensen, does the things I would do, he speaks out MY will through HIS voice and face. I feel like SOMETHING.

Take Halo for example. 1,2, & 3 were pretty much the same style/gameplay. Then comes along ODST and Reach, and their different. Halo 4? It will be different. Its the same thing Crytek is doing. Crysis came. Open world, blah blah. Then Crysis 2 came. And it was different. Now, Crysis 3 is a year away and because it has SOME similarities to C2, a lot of you are complaining.
ODST and Reach aren't "different" in the same way. All of them have everything that was in the first HALO gameplay-wise: Fast movement, high jumps, lateral strafing... The soul of HALO, the HALO "feel" is in every single HALO game.

Crytek is giving you the best of 1 and 2. Most of you (I guess all of you to be honest) enjoyed the open world of Crysis 1. Well, look. Crytek is doing their best to give you as much of that as they can to you in Crysis 3. Will it be anywhere near the level of open world-ness in Crysis 1? No, this is one of the down sides of developing for current generation consoles. Yes, it looks like Crysis 2. Of course it does. Crysis 2 looks different from Crysis 1 because an entire new game engine was used. That's not the case in Crysis 3. Their using the same engine as Crysis 2. Only this time its been updated some.

This is simply wrong. Crytek is giving us Crysis 2 with slightly (very slightly) bigger levels and some vegetation here and there. The best of Crysis was the Crysis FEEL. How playing it FEELS. In Crysis 2, EVERYTHING feels different: Moving, strafing, melee, chokegrab, throw, even the actual AIMING AND SHOOTING!

A lot of you are complaining that 2 years is not enough time for development. I think I can explain this best with an example of Assassin's Creed. Assassin's Creed is/was (can't be sure after 3 comes out) a yearly release game. But Ubisoft was almost simultaneously working on each release. Its the same case with Crysis 3. Crytek confirmed the story was done when Crysis was just released. This obviously means they started working on Crysis 3 when the story for Crysis 2 was done, which puts the development time at least 3 years. You guys should be happy Crytek doesn't make Crysis 3 a console exclusive because of YOUR piracy rates.

This is extremely ignorant. Piracy rates in consoles are absolutely rampant: The difference between PC and Console is that PC gamers are much more picky: They have a much finer eye for quality and will not buy uninspired, soulless garbage like Call of Duty. Did you know PC gaming creates higher revenue for developers and publishers than all home consoles COMBINED? (seriously, look it up).

Making a really touching, inspirational game is hard work. Better to develop for the lowest common denominator audience and rake in the profits of significantly lower efforts... Otherwise just blame it on piracy.

Long rant post but too many of you (a lot of you being pc gamers) complain about how Crysis 3 looks like Crysis 2/2.5, how it'll be the same, blah blah, when there's obvious reasons for each complaint. People really DON'T like change. (Guess that's why so many of us like COD)

We DO like change. What we don't like is garbage. No self-respecting PC gamer (which is the vast majority of PC gamers) would touch Call of Duty with a mile-long stick.

BTW: Not every CoD is garbage. Call of Duty 2 and Call of Duty 4 (which is objectively a pretty good game but one I don't personally like too much) did extremely well on PC and are near-universally praised in the PC community.

Both games still have a surprisingly healthy online PC community.

It's not about PC vs Consoles. Crytek are game developers. Doesn't matter what platform they make games for. The simple fact is they created something special with Crysis 1, and what was needed for a proper sequel is to take that gameplay and make it bigger and better. not smaller and dumber..

That's the issue. How do you go from greatest game ever to dumbed down hand holding gameplay with linear and claustrophobic maps.

and that's where the answer lies - is it because of consoles limited abilities, desire for more money or a bad design choice (franchise reboot)?

We will never know. All we know is sometime somewhere gamers got shafted, and it feelsbadman.jpg

@OP

Have you considered, in the end you might be thanking us...

It's not about PC vs Consoles. Crytek are game developers. Doesn't matter what platform they make games for. The simple fact is they created something special with Crysis 1, and what was needed for a proper sequel is to take that gameplay and make it bigger and better. not smaller and dumber..

That's the issue. How do you go from greatest game ever to dumbed down hand holding gameplay with linear and claustrophobic maps.

and that's where the answer lies - is it because of consoles limited abilities, desire for more money or a bad design choice (franchise reboot)?

We will never know. All we know is sometime somewhere gamers got shafted, and it feelsbadman.jpg

Console has nothing to do with it. Have you seen Crysis 1 for consoles?

When people here talk about "consolization" they don't mean that "consoles" themselves are the problem, but the catering to the stereotypical console audience (rabid Modern Warfare players)

Hand-holding campaign? Check.
Cramped corridors? Check.
See-first means you win? Check.
Total inability to fight back? Check.
Limited mobility to further cripple the game into luck-based rather than skill-based? Check.

Y'know, it goes on and on...

The mere existence of games like Unreal Tournament 3, HAZE and HALO on consoles renders the "consolization" argument moot as far as gameplay. The existence of freaking CRYSIS (the first) defeats the "technical limitations" argument on grounds that you can always cut corners for consoles and enable visual glory for PC, keeping the same huge maps.

So just so we're clear guys, when I mean "consolized" I mean what I said avobe: Catering to the stereotypical Modern Warfare addict who doesn't give a rat's arse about a deep, touching, SPECIAL game.

@Rukumouru who ever said they wanted something different than crysis? I get what you mean about the 'crysis feel'. Haven't played the original yet, but it does seem you run faster, and it does seem a little different. But crysis has always been about the nanosuit. Could they have made Crysis 2 a little bit 'in line' with the original? Yeah. Did they? No. Again, they wanted to try something new, and they did.

We're getting what we want. Open world? Check. A character with a personality, feelings, etc? Check. Will some of it be as good as the original? No. But the point is crytek is at least trying to do their best.
@The-Gurhm how so?

"Open World"? Not check. The original wasn't open world either, but you probably mean "bigger, more sandboxy" levels. In which case I agree. It doesn't seem as big and free as the original, but hey, I'm actually OK with that.

Also the REAL character with a REAL personality. Thank GOD. I'm not saying all of it is terrible. I'm just sayin', It's not Crysis.

See, you could have had Crysis 2 with all the "new things" and have it not svck.
-NanoSuit streamlining while not losing ANY NanoSuit power! This was in Crysis 1 for consoles! (There's Maximum Speed in it too! And it works just fine, much better than in C2!)
-NanoSuit modules: Why the hell not? I don't see how that interferes with the basic NanoSuit functionality in ANY way.
-Bipedal Aliens: Yeah, why not? I still don't see how that interferes with my complaints.
-Silent protagonist: I freaking HATE that, but still no interference with my basic FEELING complaints.
-New weapons: Still no problem
-City setting: Still no problem!

See what I'm getting at? You could have had everything that is NEW and DIFFERENT in Crysis 2 without sacrificing ANY of Crysis' feel. Same goes for Crysis 3. Then they would have been REAL SEQUELS in the exact same way every single HALO is a REAL HALO.

Crysis 3 won't be a terrible game. It won't even be a bad game. Crysis 2 svcked balls both as a sequel AND as a stand-alone game because the story went nowhere and everything was generally meaningless, disconnected and boring.

Crysis 3 will be a great game. But not Crysis. It'll be a terrible, terrible sequel.