Crysis 2 was a pretty good game. I have played it through quite a few times, and mostly enjoyed it. I didn't play the game for it's multiplayer functionality, so I will leave that aspect out of this discussion. Yes, I said discussion, as this post is intended to at least provoke some thoughtfulness among the Crysis community and the Crytek staff.

FAIR WARNING: THIS IS A LONG POST.

I played the original Crysis through to completion probably a dozen times or more; same thing for Warhead. I absolutely loved the granular detail of the environment, coupled with the freedom of movement across an absolutely enormous playing area. I relished going back to levels I had previously played through, seeing what new tactics I could try, what new havoc I could wreak on the highly destructible environments, and what details I missed the first time around.

I got svcked into the game from minute 1, and it still hasn't let go 4 and 1/2 years later. Mainly because 4 and 1/2 years later, there still isn't any game like it.

TL,DR: Crysis 1 owned EVERYTHING else in the 1st-person shooter world at the time it was released, including a little game some people here might have played (including myself) called Call of Duty 4. Again, before CoD fans flame me, this discussion does NOT pertain to multiplayer.

Crysis 2's release was a great example of yet another game being afflicted by the disease currently rauaging the gaming community. This disease infects everybody in the gaming world: developers, publishers, and gamers alike. It is the disease called "good enough."

This disease causes publishers to be deluded into thinking that if a game looks, sounds, or plays "good enough," that it will sell like mad and that development should therefore be targeted at a release date, not a specific level of overall game quality.

Developers can be afflicted with this disease as well. I know, developing a compelling, open-ended level for a game can be tough, but that is not an excuse for completely throwing the idea out and replacing it with the linear "funnel" that so many 1st and 3rd person action games employ nowadays. If there are only 1 or 2 paths that allow advancement, and only 1 or 2 ways of completing an objective, it no longer allows the gamer to squeeze enjoyment out of the game. "Oh, path 1? I tried that last time, guess I have to try path 2 now."

It is false that gamers are only capable of enjoying a certain style of gameplay. I am tired of running down the only hallway, to the only objective, to trigger the only goal.

Crysis 1 let me take on or eschew side missions, and rewarded or penalized me accordingly, but never stopped me from progressing in the game. In Crysis 2, I was literally ripped out of the driver's seat as the game forced me to hit a single button to trigger a scripted explanation of how my nano suit worked. It didn't even have to go that far; a simple button prompt would have been enough. But apparently "gamers" can't do that for themselves. Let me be clear: we can, and we SHOULD do that kind of thing ourselves. No game gives a tutorial on how to pull the trigger of a gun short of telling us what button to push, so why do I need one for an action that is JUST AS SIMPLE, such as putting on armor or cloak mode? That's right, I don't need one at all. And neither do you, reader.

But some people out there don't want gameplay that is anything but spoon-fed to them. These people are the gamers afflicted by the "good enough" disease. If a game has to hand-hold them and send them down a scripted, padded hallway full of predictable encounters and event set pieces that always require the same actions to trigger them, then they are happy. That kind of experience is good enough for them. However, if a game forces them to think a bit, or encourages them to try new tactics *GASP* on their own instead of telling them there are "tactical options available" then they freak out and write poorly-thought-out tweets to the devs and publishers, accusing them of making things too hard.

These people are idiots. Games that require a bit of thought are not bad at all. If a game is difficult within reason, people will probably enjoy it just as much if not more than a game where everything was safe and linear. Placating gamers who just want simple gameplay is not a good way to make a successful game. It is a surefire way to bore the rest of us and earn the game critical reviews that were scooped from a barrel-bottom.

Crysis 1 pushed virtually every boundary of the 1st-person shooter world when it was released. The game was short, but it had so much potential. The story it set up was slow at first, but towards the end I was on the edge of my damn seat. At the end of Crysis 2, I was slumped in my chair wondering how the series I loved could have taken such a bizarre and downward turn.

I didn't even know there was a comic that supposedly bridged the story between Crysis 1 and 2. I shouldn't have to augment a game's storyline with critical plot details by purchasing a bunch of damn comics.

When Crysis 2 was announced, I was positively giddy with anticipation. How would Nomad, Helena and Psycho get to Prophet on the frozen, radioactive island? What would happen to the entire world now that the skies were swarming with aliens? The game just got REAL.

But Crysis 2 starts out with none of that.

Oh, an ADVANCED ALIEN SPECIES breaks out of a GIANT ICE SPHERE that just got NUKED by the US military? BORING. Instead, let's start the player out with NO info on that and instead show people discussing sports and living normal lives in New York, completely divorced from any idea of an alien invasion until a *spooky voice* mysteerrrrioooousss disssseeeasssee shows up, oooohhh! Oh, but let's include a rogue radio jockey who skirts the edge of paranoia to bring the player updates on how Manhattanites are reacting to the news. The rest of the world? They don't matter, ONLY THE BIG APPLE MATTERS. None of it makes any sense.

The boundaries of storytelling remained thoroughly un-pushed. There wasn't even a slight nudge to be felt.

The graphics of Crysis 1, it goes without saying, pushed the boundaries of game environments harder than anything that had ever been released. Crysis 2 utterly failed to capitalize on Crytek's legacy of great environments, first pioneered by Far Cry and pushed through the stratosphere by Crysis and Crysis Warhead. It doesn't matter that certain advancements were or were not included in the release build of Crysis 2. What did matter is that everybody expected them, and those expectations were let down, then more or less set aside for 3 months while the bad press and angry forum posts piled up like an avalanche.

The DX11 and Hi-res texture updates for PC were awesome when they were FINALLY released, but they still failed to address core concerns about bland environments with low interactivity. The damage had been done. People expected even bigger and more interactive environments than in Crysis 1, and instead they got environments tailored to simplistic console controls and weak console hardware. No big, sprawling fields full of trees or giant bays. Hell, even central park was gimped into a tiny raised island, far away from anything that might allow for sandbox gameplay.

It didn't help matters when Cevat Yerli acted like the DX11 update was some kind of great gift, instead of something that should have been delivered on from day 1 because of customer demands and expectations. Maybe he was skirting a fine line between calling out EA for pushing his team too hard, and attempting to calm the now-rabid Crysis fanbase. But it came off as a hollow consolation. The idea, however implausible, that the DX11 features might never have even come about save for the outcry that followed Crysis 2's release, really has me worried about how Crytek's priorities have shifted, through force or voluntarily, under EA's rule.

I like Crytek. Cevat Yerli is a dedicated guy, who I believe truly does want to make good games. I think that it is unfortunate that, in all likelihood, pressure from EA more than likely forced the radical changes in gameplay and graphics in order to meet proposed sales targets and release deadlines.

I understand that EA and Crytek want to make more money. The way to do that is not to try and appeal to some base focus-group level of gamer, but to make something so good, so awesomely badass, that EVERYBODY wants to buy it. Also, a good way to make money is NOT to yank it from one of the most widely-used digital distribution platforms (Steam) mere weeks after release, and set it up in an entirely new marketplace (Origin). That would be like selling a new car at the world's most popular dealership, then yanking all models a few weeks later and taking them to a much less well-known dealership, and wondering why it isn't selling as well as you'd hoped. It svcks that Crysis 2 was one of the most-pirated games released in 2011, but I bet a hell of a lot more people would have bought it if it was a better product that didn't use a terrible distribution platform.

In the end, I hate that "good enough" ended up winning out over "being awesome". I enjoyed the game, but not as much as I know I could have in some alternate universe where Crysis 2 had a badass story, epic environments, and super-tight gameplay.

I would think EA has learned it's lesson and will allow Crytek time to implement DX11 features from day 1 for Crysis 3's release. Then again, they did just get the Worst Company in America award from The Consumerist website, so who can say.

I leave the development team with one final plea:

Please Crytek, don't make Crysis 3 "good enough".

Make it unforgettably great.

This is...

I gotta sit down. 100% true words. Not biased, not flaming, only objective thoughts.

Well, seeing how EA is the one doing the forcing Crytek to do things in a certain parameter. However, if EA were to make the parameters much more favorable, or if they learned their lesson from C2, Crytek should be able to have alot more space to work in.

EA is the one doing the forcing Crytek to do things in a certain parameter.

What evidence do you have of this? You make it sound like Crytek has no say so in regards to their own IP. I don't think EA is putting a gun to Crytek's collective head and forcing them to do anything.

I have seen many posts on this forum with people stating the same thing without ever providing some evidence of EA forcing anything. I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying where is the evidence?

Some seem to think EA is the "end all and be all" when it comes to decisions with Crysis. They are just publisher. They are not the IP holder and Crytek doesn't have to use EA. It's their choice.

They, as publishers, decide on marketing, approve of ideas, and decide deadlines of games. That alone can **** up games.

They, as publishers, decide on marketing, approve of ideas, and decide deadlines of games. That alone can **** up games.

Yet these are in no way creative design decisions. I ask again, what evidence is their that EA forces Crytek to do anything when it comes to designing the game?

Crytek voluntarily chose EA as publisher. They could just as easily pick a different publisher. EA doesn't own Crytek.

As an independent developer studio I don't think anybody is forcing Crytek to do anything.

They, as publishers, decide on marketing, approve of ideas, and decide deadlines of games. That alone can **** up games.

Yet these are in no way creative design decisions. I ask again, what evidence is their that EA forces Crytek to do anything when it comes to designing the game?

Crytek voluntarily chose EA as publisher. They could just as easily pick a different publisher. EA doesn't own Crytek.
The design is impacted by what EA wants. Crytek can still try to the best of their abilities to do anything within parameters that EA has set. I never said that EA tells Crytek how to make their games; no one tells the game designers how to design their game. However, EA set certain goals last time around, such as hoping for Crysis 2 to be as popular as Black Ops, and told them they needed to make changes with the game so they could be a "COD Killer".

I never said that Crytek had no say, merely that they do have limits and objectives set by EA.

Well you might not like EA at all juding by your posts, but Crytek obviously does as they are their choice for publishing their biggest franchise and have been for years.

So, despite what many may feel about EA and Crytek, they are teamed up and that's how it is.

I just think people are too quick to call out EA for things they don't like about Crysis because it's easier to attack EA then it is to attack the developer itself which we all like. That's why we are here after all.

I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and Crytek deserve most if not all blame for things you might not like about the Crysis franchise IMHO.

Well you might not like EA at all juding by your posts, but Crytek obviously does as they are their choice for publishing their biggest franchise and have been for years.

So, despite what many may feel about EA and Crytek, they are teamed up and that's how it is.
I can't tell if you just like EA or hate Crytek.
Anyway, funding is all provided by the publisher, as well as marketing and these costs can't be provided for by Crytek as of yet.
Also, isn't being rated the worst company in the U.S. saying something about EA?

What that poll on worst companies says is that internet folks are retarded. Yeah, EA is somehow worse than Halliburton or Bank of America? I needed a good laugh.

FYI, I like EA and Crytek. I own and play many EA games as well as games from other companies. Who cares? I'm almost 30 years old now. Many an EA game has been played by these hands. Why should I hate them? They have published and produced some of the best games ever. Medal of Honor Allied Assault, Battlefield(all of them), Dead Space, and so on. Why all the hate?

This is one of the greatest posts I've ever read. I'd buy you a beer if I could.

I'm a long time Crysis fan. I beat that game once a year, I love it, I love the freedom and challenge and openness it offers me. I consider it the greatest FPS ever made.
The only reason I just signed up to this forum is because I felt sick to my stomach by watching the new Crysis 3 trailer. Looks more of the flashy linear braindead Crysis 2 gameplay and level design.. I wanted to sign up and find true Crysis fans who may or may not be able to influence this lost developer's terrible new direction.

This is one of the greatest posts I've ever read. I'd buy you a beer if I could.

I'm a long time Crysis fan. I beat that game once a year, I love it, I love the freedom and challenge and openness it offers me. I consider it the greatest FPS ever made.
The only reason I just signed up to this forum is because I felt sick to my stomach by watching the new Crysis 3 trailer. Looks more of the flashy linear braindead Crysis 2 gameplay and level design.. I wanted to sign up and find true Crysis fans who may or may not be able to influence this lost developer's terrible new direction.

I understand that everyone has first impressions as well as opinions but..

Please tell me you have actually read articles of people who have played the demo?
And you know that Crytek has an entire year to change HUD's as well as levels?
Anyway, I want to know how you exactly think that it looks more linear than C2.
Not seeing enough gameplay to tell doesn't mean that you can automatically assume things..

I agree with the OP on pretty much everything, although I think the blame lies solely on Crytek. Nobody could have forced them to make a multiplatform game against their will. They knew they'd have to make massive compromises to meet their deadline, and they did it anyway.

As for Crysis 3, I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, I predict a re-hashed Crysis 2 with the same overpowered nanosuit, CoD Killstreak rewards and perk system.

This is one of the greatest posts I've ever read. I'd buy you a beer if I could.

I'm a long time Crysis fan. I beat that game once a year, I love it, I love the freedom and challenge and openness it offers me. I consider it the greatest FPS ever made.
The only reason I just signed up to this forum is because I felt sick to my stomach by watching the new Crysis 3 trailer. Looks more of the flashy linear braindead Crysis 2 gameplay and level design.. I wanted to sign up and find true Crysis fans who may or may not be able to influence this lost developer's terrible new direction.

I understand that everyone has first impressions as well as opinions but..

Please tell me you have actually read articles of people who have played the demo?
And you know that Crytek has an entire year to change HUD's as well as levels?
Anyway, I want to know how you exactly think that it looks more linear than C2.
Not seeing enough gameplay to tell doesn't mean that you can automatically assume things..

At this point if you're not familiar with the industry enough to figure it out, I'm really not going to explain it.
EA is well known for killing any brand that aspired to challenge the player, Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 among other games show the decline in quality and the new found "good enough" mentality.

The fact that Crytek is actually PROUD of the abomination called Crysis 2, whipping their graphics around as if games are made for graphics, and not admitting how badly the game is designed, how braindead and linear and overly-cinematic the game is, how pathetic it tries to be Modern Warfare by using the same kind of environment and where the camera gets pulled away from the player and into a "dramatic" cutscene, etc.. shows that they're only gonna go further down south with this next game.

I mean, think about it. If Crysis was oranges, and Crysis 2 is apples, the apples sold better and the developer are more proud of it.. what do you expect Crysis 3 to be?
That's right. An apple pie.

I mean, think about it. If Crysis was oranges, and Crysis 2 is apples, the apples sold better and the developer are more proud of it.. what do you expect Crysis 3 to be?
That's right. An apple pie.
Wut? By your own anology, the oranges actually sold better, or at least equivalently.

I mean, think about it. If Crysis was oranges, and Crysis 2 is apples, the apples sold better and the developer are more proud of it.. what do you expect Crysis 3 to be?
That's right. An apple pie.
Wut? By your own anology, the oranges actually sold better, or at least equivalently.

What? I'm simply saying that Crysis 2 outsold Crysis, which is the reason Crytek's gonna make Crysis 3 more of what Crysis 2 gave us.

I mean, think about it. If Crysis was oranges, and Crysis 2 is apples, the apples sold better and the developer are more proud of it.. what do you expect Crysis 3 to be?
That's right. An apple pie.
Wut? By your own anology, the oranges actually sold better, or at least equivalently.

What? I'm simply saying that Crysis 2 outsold Crysis, which is the reason Crytek's gonna make Crysis 3 more of what Crysis 2 gave us.
Yeah I know what you're saying, and unless Crysis 2 has sold a ton while I've been away, it didn't.

Crysis sold over 3million copies on PC alone. Crysis 2 has only sold around 3million recently IIRC. IF it outsold the original, it would have been by a pitiful amount. Especially considering that it has triple the potential audience.

I agree with the OP on pretty much everything, although I think the blame lies solely on Crytek. Nobody could have forced them to make a multiplatform game against their will. They knew they'd have to make massive compromises to meet their deadline, and they did it anyway.

As for Crysis 3, I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, I predict a re-hashed Crysis 2 with the same overpowered nanosuit, CoD Killstreak rewards and perk system.

I do agree that Crytek, in all likelihood, made a lot of bad decisions themselves. But they did agree to be in a strategic partnership with EA, so I'm sure the publisher had plenty of opportunities to inject bad influences into the game development cycle. The two are, unfortunately, not mutually exclusive when it comes to contributing bad ideas.

Crytek might have bitten off more than it could chew, and EA was all to happy to keep feeding them, demanding at the same time that they finish their plate on schedule. Of course, it would be silly and naive to blame only one party or the other. Like so many things, the truth lies hidden somewhere in the middle.

I can't remember where I heard it, but the saying "perfection is the enemy of the greater good" very much applies to the world of game development. However, getting the greater good instead of perfection is a much better tradeoff than getting a half-assed "good enough".

I bet that EA and Crytek both wanted to release the game on time, corner cutting and all, so they could get some of that sweet, sweet console moolah that they didn't have access to the first time around. I can't really blame them, but they would have gotten even more if they'd just taken Crysis 1 and built on it, instead of going with the radical changes they implemented.

Crytek showed that Crysis 1 can run on consoles, albiet pared down quite a bit. Nothing was stopping them from at least trying to improve on their original gameplay formula instead of overhauling it significantly.

Oh well, I am not going to judge Crysis 3 until I see a 5-minute playthrough preview video in about a year. That will be a pretty good indicator of the direction they've chosen to go in. I actually have pretty high hopes considering that Crytek doesn't have to build an entire engine this time around, and they have much more experience with it. The gameplay remains to truly be seen, since I don't count a few dozen second-long cuts as a decent representation. Here's hoping they've learned a thing or two.

My fear, mainly from the gameplay trailer, is that the goal for Crysis 3 is: Lets improve upon C2

If I could I would completely remove C2 from Crytek's collective memories and inject this mentality: Let's make a game equal to (or hell, even better) than Crysis 1. But I'd settle for equal to

I'm fine with having a game as good or better than Crysis 1; however, that doesn't mean I just want a copy of Crysis 1. As long as they only take the parts they need from the latest game in their series and move on with the other parts, the new game will be fresh and have plenty of opportunity. In order to be able to relate to the game before, certain things need to be the same or at least similar, but implementing a lot of new ideas is what makes the game a success. At least, that's how I see it.

Call me crazy but I prefer Crysis 2 because of how well the story flows in it. I do wish for more Crysis like range of what I can do to complete my objectives. The Nanosuit 2 though is much more powerful and streamline in the Story mode, Multiplayer its just COD4 with supersuits... I liked it but it was not what it could have been. Still Crysis 2 left me wanting more. I for one do think the cliff hanger is kind of crazy from Crysis but Crysis 2 did what most game have not done and totally did NOT flow the predicable path on a sequel. I for one am happy they did. We have had enough of storys that go the way we think they should. Crysis 2 throwed a ceph(via Nanosuit 2.0) at the typical story progression and said "**** that. Lets try something different" Now gameplay was a let down(Not the streamline suit but more of the linearity of the stages.) I for one am wanting to play Crysis 3 to continue story. Its got my curious because the don't follow the liner story method at ALL. Not many good storys these days do that and I for one am happy to jump in and use my mind to pick together the pieces. Enough of spoon feed storys and enough of spoon fed gameplay.

Let Crysis 3 do what Crysis and Crysis 2 didn't right by combine unique good story tale and and unique sandbox gameplay into one game. I am along for the ride and real do not care what anyone thinks. I can have my own fun with the thanks.

@OP

Thank you...like you I am a huge Crysis 1/Warhead fan. Still to this day I play through it every year...still tweaking cvars and trying all the fun, sneaky or crazy different ways I never played each level before. Crysis 1 has a place in my gaming life that no other game has.

I was and still am extremely unhappy and angry with Crysis 2 and can't agree more with how you outlined your thoughts and perspective.

Honestly, I cringed in my gut when I first came back to this site to check out the Crysis 3 news...I left the PC forums about a year ago fighting post after poll after argument with fanboys that didn't care about the core things that made Crysis 1 great and were too bought in to the "good enough" syndrome to see the limitations and stripped down aspects of the game...still to this day I hold Crysis 1 above almost all other FPS games out there. It's simply a maserpiece and I hope this message makes an impact becuase the old nano suit powers, basic funtionality and plot potential could get saved if the really push themselves to improve and bring back the things that made the original game so great.

I'm glad the game was announced this far out and I'm even more grateful to have you and the others that have come back to the forums to respectfully fight to get this important message to Crytek.

I hope they listen...

Yeah Crysis 1 hasn't yet been topped IMO. Don't get me wrong, Crysis 2 was a great game when they finally sorted out all the issues and released the DX11 and textures. I agree it was annoying when the DX11 was announced as a 'gift' to the community, it
should have been in place from day 1.

I fully expect Crysis 3 to be a great game, and as it's more of a development of Crysis 2 rather than an entirely new project I am guessing that it won't release in a beta state like Crysis 2 did. What does concern me is the statement that 'the experience will be the same across all platforms'. This means that the PC game will be compromised again by the limited capabilities of the old consoles.

The Crysis series is overrated, it wasn't much more than a tech demo. Yeah, the nanosuit powers had potential but if you really want to describe the game as a sandbox, let me tell you, it must be one of the most linear sandboxes I've ever played.

The Crysis series is overrated, it wasn't much more than a tech demo. Yeah, the nanosuit powers had potential but if you really want to describe the game as a sandbox, let me tell you, it must be one of the most linear sandboxes I've ever played.
That's the thing, I'd have never described Crysis as a sandbox. To me, the term refers to games such as GTA or Batman: Arkham City, where the player actually has not just geographical freedom, but the freedom to take and approach tasks in the order of their choosing.

As far as I'm concerned, Crysis was linear, it just gave you a beautiful setting, and a LOT of room in which to move and choose how exactly to assault an objective. It's freedom sure, but not a sandbox imo.

That being said, I disagree that Crysis 1 was overrated.