Homefront will support 32 player servers on PC potentially change if the demand is there for it!
Demo recording support will be available on dedicated and listen servers
Dedicated Server Executable will be provided
ect ..
http://community.homefront-game.com/blog-post/homefront-pc

Battlefield 3
included a full single-player campaign and a co-op campaign
return of jets, prone, and 64-player multiplayer (on PC)
more info to come ...
http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/

i mean so far those look pretty good and i think those game/developers deserve our support since they are giving us "at least most of us" what we want
i fear that crysis 2 wont even be a benchmark tool as the first one was

dont misunderstood me i want crysis2 to be the game is supposed to be the best but so far crytek/ea has left us in he dark

People will try and claim that Crysis 2 is using the PC because of better graphics. Graphics are not what made Crysis great, despite what some ignorant and jealous console gamers would tell you. So it's really disappointing that Crytek is only scaling graphics on PC. The 6vs6 player limit is absolutely pathetic.

more isnt always better, its just a design decision. small, intense battles with teamwork, or large open battlefields with lots of tanks and ****(doesnt work in new york) with barely any teamwork, to be honest i think the nanosuit gameplay is more suited forsmall intense battles, so are the maps.

Still it should have been 10v10 to compensate for player drop/new joiners etc. but okay thats just my opinion

What about Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad?

IMO Crysis 2 is only going to be good for the SP and modding capabilities.

Homefront supports 32 players for consoles aswell.
That's why the graphics look so crappy.

Homefront looks like **** plus big battles really doesnt mean better. Example: Counter Strike.

Also cease to do **** like this, it makes you out as a flamer or troll.

Crytek IS working with PC gaming its just not doing it exclusive. It took DICE 2 games to get into Console and PC gamers hearts and Crytek is at its first.

But Homefront MP looks like a side product to the COOL looking Single Player

Also Battlefield has never really had any single player at all. The Multiplayer is strong.

Crysis 2 on the other hand, plays with a great some what balanced gameplay and looks the best. Also the Single Player is a buyer on its own!

Crysis 2 is a package, not two separate components.

Also hark I got to love you.

Homefront looks like **** plus big battles really doesnt mean better. Example: Counter Strike.

Also cease to do **** like this, it makes you out as a flamer or troll.

Crytek IS working with PC gaming its just not doing it exclusive. It took DICE 2 games to get into Console and PC gamers hearts and Crytek is at its first.

But Homefront MP looks like a side product to the COOL looking Single Player

Also Battlefield has never really had any single player at all. The Multiplayer is strong.

Crysis 2 on the other hand, plays with a great some what balanced gameplay and looks the best. Also the Single Player is a buyer on its own!

Crysis 2 is a package, not two separate components.

Also hark I got to love you.

Sorry for Double Post. My bad.

Homefront will support 32 player servers on PC potentially change if the demand is there for it!
Demo recording support will be available on dedicated and listen servers
Dedicated Server Executable will be provided
ect ..
http://community.homefront-game.com/blog-post/homefront-pc

Battlefield 3
included a full single-player campaign and a co-op campaign
return of jets, prone, and 64-player multiplayer (on PC)
more info to come ...
http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/

i mean so far those look pretty good and i think those game/developers deserve our support since they are giving us "at least most of us" what we want
i fear that crysis 2 wont even be a benchmark tool as the first one was

dont misunderstood me i want crysis2 to be the game is supposed to be the best but so far crytek/ea has left us in he dark

Battlefield 3 has 64 players, prone and jets, wow! Just like Battlefield 2!
Come on, they take away stuff and put it back, that's not supporting PC-players, that's correcting ones mistakes. They should add something on top of that if they want to seem supportive. Anyhow it's nice to hear that.

As to Crysis 1 being a benchmark, that's not true. An open gameplay style may not fit everyone, but those who appreciate building up their own tactics based on their situation and try it out think more of Crysis 1 than just being a benchmark. To me Crysis 1 is way better than Call of Duty, not story wise necessarily, I really don't care that much about game stories, I care about how much freedom I have in the game to be creative, test things out (build tactics), that's what makes a game fun in my opinion. In Call of Duty you can't do much, too much is scripted, and the A.I. are just their to be killed, they don't "think" as oppose to the A.I. of Crysis who actually try to survive and outsmart you. Crysis is less about having fast reflexes, taking cover all the time, and memorizing things, Crysis gameplay is more about thinking and that's what I like about Cryteks games. I can choose to start a crazy firefight in Crysis and survive it, and I do that sometimes, however I prefer playing it calm. Opinions differ, saying Crysis 1 was a benchmark isn't true though, just because the gamestyle doesn't fit you.

more isnt always better, its just a design decision. small, intense battles with teamwork, or large open battlefields with lots of tanks and ****(doesnt work in new york) with barely any teamwork, to be honest i think the nanosuit gameplay is more suited forsmall intense battles, so are the maps.

Still it should have been 10v10 to compensate for player drop/new joiners etc. but okay thats just my opinion

I hope you're joking, I find smaller maps just be hectic since everyone just runs around randomly (CoD) in bigger maps, people have to work together to be able to get stuff done, since one guy running alone on a big battlefield = Death

Big maps in New York would have been maybe ground-breaking, just think of all the possibilities, jumping across roofs, firefights on the ground, a lot of players could fit in those maps, but it seems like they went for small teams vs teams which isn't bad in my opinion. Best game to make succesfull team worked base multiplayer is for me Ghost Recon Advance Warfighter 2 for PC, only played the demo though but it had great multiplayer. I believe the teams consisted of six to eight players each or something liked that. Think it was USA against Mexico, USA had only one spawn each player until one in the team blew up a tank, and Mexico had unlimited spawn and their objective was to prevent the tanks from being blown up. There where three tanks in the map from the demo, and all maps could be tanks up in any order, making team work criticall for Mexico also. Maps were bigger than Crysis 2 but a lot smaller than Bad Company 2, all in all it's probably the best multiplayer I've played, surpasses Bad Company 2 as well as Crysis Wars and Call of Duty in my opinion.

more isnt always better, its just a design decision. small, intense battles with teamwork, or large open battlefields with lots of tanks and ****(doesnt work in new york) with barely any teamwork, to be honest i think the nanosuit gameplay is more suited forsmall intense battles, so are the maps.

Still it should have been 10v10 to compensate for player drop/new joiners etc. but okay thats just my opinion

I hope you're joking, I find smaller maps just be hectic since everyone just runs around randomly (CoD) in bigger maps, people have to work together to be able to get stuff done, since one guy running alone on a big battlefield = Death

you can compare crysis 2 to good, even the level design is completely different and it cod veryone just runs aroud with marathon, the gameplay is totally different. I think that in objective bases modes teamwork in crysis will be a lot better then in cod. but well see

When it comes down to it, the purpose of the nano suit is to remove the need for other advanced forms of weaponry (IE: tanks) because a faster and infinitely more agile super-soldier who can wield weapons as devastating as a tank cannon is clearly more combat effective than slow, single purpose tanks. Since - from what I have made of the media released to date anyway - the focus of Crysis 2 is on the new and improved suit, having vehicles would detract from the intended experience of Crysis 2, which is to be a super-soldier who doesn't have a need for tanks and vehicles. To get to the point, vehicles in MP wouldn't fit with the goal of this game. And on that note, having 64 people in a game (or even 32 for this matter) running around without vehicles would be stupid because the speed mode cannot be balanced for small, CQB maps and large-scale battlefields at the same time. I DO agree that 6v6 is too little. It would be nice for 10v10 or 12v12 on decently large and very vertical maps so we could experience squad-based tactics with a lot of opportunity for snipers.

I'm biased because I love Crytek and I have enjoyed their products since Far Cry and even if 6v6 is all we get for MP, all I can say is that you better have designed the maps absolutely FLAWLESSLY, or it will be more than a huge disappointment for a lot of people.

There is far too much potential for this game to be settling.

Dice said the controls on pc for battlefield 3 are going to be alot sharper or something like that.

Crysis 2 MP isn't designed for large scale warfare. Get over it, larger player counts don't inherently make a game better.

Homefront will support 32 player servers on PC potentially change if the demand is there for it!
Demo recording support will be available on dedicated and listen servers
Dedicated Server Executable will be provided
ect ..
http://community.homefront-game.com/blog-post/homefront-pc

Battlefield 3
included a full single-player campaign and a co-op campaign
return of jets, prone, and 64-player multiplayer (on PC)
more info to come ...
http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/

i mean so far those look pretty good and i think those game/developers deserve our support since they are giving us "at least most of us" what we want
i fear that crysis 2 wont even be a benchmark tool as the first one was

dont misunderstood me i want crysis2 to be the game is supposed to be the best but so far crytek/ea has left us in he dark

Battlefield 3 has 64 players, prone and jets, wow! Just like Battlefield 2!
Come on, they take away stuff and put it back, that's not supporting PC-players, that's correcting ones mistakes. They should add something on top of that if they want to seem supportive. Anyhow it's nice to hear that.

As to Crysis 1 being a benchmark, that's not true. An open gameplay style may not fit everyone, but those who appreciate building up their own tactics based on their situation and try it out think more of Crysis 1 than just being a benchmark. To me Crysis 1 is way better than Call of Duty, not story wise necessarily, I really don't care that much about game stories, I care about how much freedom I have in the game to be creative, test things out (build tactics), that's what makes a game fun in my opinion. In Call of Duty you can't do much, too much is scripted, and the A.I. are just their to be killed, they don't "think" as oppose to the A.I. of Crysis who actually try to survive and outsmart you. Crysis is less about having fast reflexes, taking cover all the time, and memorizing things, Crysis gameplay is more about thinking and that's what I like about Cryteks games. I can choose to start a crazy firefight in Crysis and survive it, and I do that sometimes, however I prefer playing it calm. Opinions differ, saying Crysis 1 was a benchmark isn't true though, just because the gamestyle doesn't fit you.

It was a graphics benchmark. but due to console realease it will not be a new enchmark for current gaming pcs

Homefront looks like **** plus big battles really doesnt mean better. Example: Counter Strike.

Also cease to do **** like this, it makes you out as a flamer or troll.

Crytek IS working with PC gaming its just not doing it exclusive. It took DICE 2 games to get into Console and PC gamers hearts and Crytek is at its first.

But Homefront MP looks like a side product to the COOL looking Single Player

Also Battlefield has never really had any single player at all. The Multiplayer is strong.

Crysis 2 on the other hand, plays with a great some what balanced gameplay and looks the best. Also the Single Player is a buyer on its own!

.
you seriously don't know what you are talking about

Homefront MP will at least have true ded servers + mood tools
Battlefield 3 will have full single-player campaign and a co-op campaign + ded servers

also if you pc can run crysis all max out with 16Q antialiasing it can run any other game max out full so yes it is also a benchmark
also if Counter-Strike is so bad why is the most played game on steam

Current Players Peak Today Game

18,403 76,542 Counter-Strike: Source
17,156 48,434 Call of Duty Black Ops - Multiplayer
16,865 19,814 Team Fortress 2
15,175 19,028 Sid Meier's Civilization V
15,162 80,357 Counter-Strike
10,881 15,041 Left 4 Dead 2
8,102 38,970 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
7,148 9,649 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
6,312 7,982 Garry's Mod
5,283 29,760 Football Manager 2011
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/?snr=1_4_4__23

i wish the best for crytek and crysis 2 but if it is a console port with full of hackers matchmaking system i wont buy it .