It’s no great secret that there is a large group of people dissatisied with the Crysis series for one reason or another. The actual technical aspects are superb and they are indeed great shooters, we’ve come to expect this (and we know Crytek can’t risk another DX11 type scandal again) so most of the speculation I see in the Crysis 3 channel has turned to the story and the characters.

As a staunch believer that games are art (in the same way that a book or movie is), this would normally increase my low faith in humanity; however people seem to be obsessed with a few insignificant things.

The first is: Prophet and how exactly he will be brought back into Crysis 3. I will not discuss this because I have reiterated my explanation in countless threads already (seriously, if you’re confused about how he’ll return, go here)

The second point of interest seems to be Nomad, Psycho and Helena. I don’t know if I’m alone in this opinion, but Crysis’ characters seem to have all the depth, intrigue and pleasure to interact with as cardboard cut-outs that have been submerged in wallpaper paste. Nathan Gould and Tara Strickland were dreary, uninspiring and unconvincing; the only character I had any kind of affinity for in Crysis 2 (apart from Alcatraz) was Barclay. Lockhart had potential to be interesting but that didn’t quite happen, and Hargreaves’ motivations and history were not explained as well as they could have been; but there were all shining stars of briliance compared to Nomad.

In Crysis, Nomad was just a dude, there wasn’t anything special about him, just your typical army guy, and the fact that he dies in the comic books (which go some way to bridging the games) is no big deal, he wasn’t an interesting character to play. Still, people are comfortable with the familiar, (which of course is the main reason why PC gamers felt that C2 was a slap in the face) and to bring in a new protagonist in the second game without providing a satisfying end for the old one, is irritating.

That being said, why on earth do people want so badly for us to revisit one of the most generic videogame heroes of all time? We’ve got Jason Statham *Cough* I mean Psycho in Crysis 3 don’t we? I mean, he’s not exactly the most original creation of all time, but with Warhead I started to see some depth being built and liked it!

The way I see it, the time gap and most of the original character's deaths, could work out very nicely for the Crysis universe; Tara Strickland would be middle-aged and not spicy enough to feature in Crysis 3, Barclay would be a sort of fatherly General (if he’s involved at all), Psycho could have some sort of age appropriate affliction for hilarities sake (how would the Nanosuit deal with an incontinent operator?), Prophet can hopefully have an emotional journey due to his blurred identity and Nathan Gould will hopefully have died in a ditch long since.

So don’t get in a flap about not seeing Nomad again, be glad that some of the vacuous characters are being weeded out!

Why gamers like Nomad... lets see... why do gamers like mute or charakterless alter egos like gordon freeman or nomad in games?

Because you and your actions in the game should define this person and its nature. Its matter of taste.. for example i never liked Nico Bellic from GTA 4... i played the game but i freakin hated the charakter... it was never a good game for me i can tell you. So the less charakter a alter ego already has.. the more people can actually identify with him or her.

A good compromise are for example Adam Jensen and J.C. Denton from the Deus Ex series... with givin you options to communicate and interact with your enviroment... you define the character your alter ego will represent.

There's no way games will ever so much as begin to compare with books/films plot-wise until they get full, complex, well-developed characters. It always makes me laugh when some uneducated idiot starts trying to defend having these shells in place of people. No, it does not mean you can develop the character in your own way, that's what character customization/in-game choices are there for. Playing as a brick means you haven't got a protagonist, full stop.

I disagree, there are a ton of games out now pushing the complex characters and scenarios that rival or even defeat modern film and book. Games like Deus Ex, Mass Effect, and Heavy Rain are for the most part interactive films.

If you haven't played Heavy Rain yet you should, it's by far the best PS3 exclusive in my opinion, David Cage knows how to write a compelling story.

I hate it when my character starts talking. I mean, shut up already, I'm the one playing the bloody game!

One thing that makes me remember Nomad more is from Warhead where he isn't involved but mentioned.

"Did you disarm the warhead?"-Nomad

"That's my Nomad, always putting the mission first."-Psycho

Nomad got the job done and he continued to do so even when his superiors told him the odds of a successful resolution was not possible.
You get a sense of this being referenced in Crysis 2 at the end.

http://youtu.be/PTKgA33rLlg

"If failing any successful resolution of this situation, the pentagon has authorized a stratcom tactical nuclear strike on the Manhattan structure effective in 20 minutes, whatever you plan to do, get up there and do it fast."

I shudder to think what's going to happen when this guy discovers films. I mean, the protagonist speaks, virtually all the time. Horrific.

Admittedly, I was talking from the PoV of the standard FPS, I haven't played Heavy Rain. Should've said that in my first post, really. Just pretend my post said "(t)here's no way Crysis 3 will ever so much as begin to compare with books/films plot-wise until...".

I watch films, I don't play them.

Nomad talked. Alcatraz never talks.
That's why we like Nomad (and Psycho). They had a character