Crysis 3 revealed

Tudz said:
Talk about pessimistic :p
Click to expand...

Given the departure from much of what made Crysis 1 and Warhead interesting to me, and the fact that Cevat Yerli has a habit of carrying on like a self entitled twat, I have little faith that Crysis 3 is going to be the redeeming game that some are hoping it will be.

I just noticed that Kotaku has posted a preview which to me conveys some very ominous signs.

http://kotaku.com/5904595/the-big-new-things-in-crysis-3-are-deadly-bows-and-nano-domes

Cell Industries has developed domes to contain Ceph threats and eradicate remaining alien cells. The drastic cleansing method means that all human life has either been moved out of the nano domes, or wiped out by the alien diseases. The domes also create perfect gameplay sandboxes.
Click to expand...

Sounds awfully similar to the "action bubble" sandboxes from Crysis 2 which Crytek claimed were as large as the maps from Crysis 1 and Warhead (http://www.edge-online.com/features/crysis-2-interview). I really don't trust the rhetoric being spewed by Yerli that Crysis 3 is going to more closely emulate the open sand box environments of Crysis 1.

Players will slip on the nano suit of the character Prophet, who returns from the dead in Crysis 2 (apparently he didn't die). "We brought Prophet back because he has the most heritage; he's the most layered, flawed, and the most interesting characters in the franchise," says Hojengaard. "He was a good soldier before, but now he's returned to find out what happened to his squad (killed in Crysis 2) and to redeem himself by becoming the hunter, not the hunted. It's the theme of the game, redemption and revenge."
Click to expand...

Seriously?! Which no talent hack are they getting to write the story for this??

The tech bow might raise some eyebrows. What on Earth is such an archaic weapon doing in such a futuristic game? "The tech bow brings new functionality to Crysis 3," says Hojengaard very seriously. "In the previous games, weapons drained your energy. The tech bow doesn't. Also, you can use it while cloaked, giving Prophet certain advantages."
Click to expand...

As if invisibility didn't already make the previous games stupidly easy.

In Crysis 2, the suit could multitask. One of the new features in the third game is Prophet's ability to wield enemy weapons, not an option in previous games...For a sandbox FPS, the bow won't always be useful, so Prophet will have to pick up alien guns. One of them is the Typhoon, which shoots 500 rounds per second (yes, that's not a typo, 500 rounds per second). The other is a heavy mortar, which shoots plasma grenades and plasma missiles.
Click to expand...

I am not quite sure what to think of this one, but it almost feels like Crytek is desperately trying to borrow heavily from other successful games (i.e. Halo and CoD) as a means to appeal to a very specific type of gamer rather than experimenting with their own creativity.

Anyway, I don't trust Crytek or Yerli and I am not optimistic that Crysis 3 will address what I considered to be the shortcomings of the last game.
 
As if Aliens or evil corporations could ever eradicate all the bums in NY. I can't suspend my disbelief here, guys.
 
defiant007 said:
Given the departure from much of what made Crysis 1 and Warhead interesting to me, and the fact that Cevat Yerli has a habit of carrying on like a self entitled twat, I have little faith that Crysis 3 is going to be the redeeming game that some are hoping it will be.
Click to expand...
That's basically what I mean by being pessimistic :p Gamers take shit so personally. Crytek have made, basically, 3 games (counting Warhead as an expansion for Crysis 1). Far Cry (8 years ago), Crysis (5 years ago) and Crysis 2 (last year). They make one game that is a departure from the sandbox nature of the previous couple (and it's arguable whether or not it's actually worse anyway) and made a push down a slightly different road with one game and they're a pariah of the gaming community.

I know Yerli is a bit of a douche, I've been saying that since Crysis 1 yet people still love that game, it's not like he's changed, he's the same douche he was when Crysis 1 was out. Despite that I'm remaining quietly optimistic until at the very least we have some proper gameplay videos and ideally until the actual game itself comes out.
 
Doesn't Prophet already "come back" at the end of Crysis 2? The suit basically absorbed all his personality or something, then he takes over whatever the random grunt you were playing as right at the end. At least that's what I vaguely remember happening, it's been a while since I played it.
 
Tudz said:
That's basically what I mean by being pessimistic :p Gamers take shit so personally. Crytek have made, basically, 3 games (counting Warhead as an expansion for Crysis 1). Far Cry (8 years ago), Crysis (5 years ago) and Crysis 2 (last year). They make one game that is a departure from the sandbox nature of the previous couple (and it's arguable whether or not it's actually worse anyway) and made a push down a slightly different road with one game and they're a pariah of the gaming community.

I know Yerli is a bit of a douche, I've been saying that since Crysis 1 yet people still love that game, it's not like he's changed, he's the same douche he was when Crysis 1 was out. Despite that I'm remaining quietly optimistic until at the very least we have some proper gameplay videos and ideally until the actual game itself comes out.
Click to expand...

As a consumer, I am not in the business of giving developers second chances to redeem themselves, particularly where they (a) outright lie to or mislead their user base; or (b) disparage their user base. Yerli does both of those things....he and Crytek didn't become pariahs for no good reason, much like Cliffy B and Epic haven't become disdained in the PC world for no good reason.

Perhaps I would be somewhat more forgiving if it was possible to return/on-sell PC software, but that's not the world we live in anymore.....so if a developer sells me a sub par product at full price, you can be guaranteed that I am not going to be receptive to buying their future products.

And so far everything I am reading about Crysis 3 is not instilling any faith that its going to be much of an improvement over Crysis 2.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...-graphics-running-on-crysis-3-on-ps3-xbox-360

"We want to make sure as much as is humanly possible can translate from a DX11 variant into a DX9 variant, that will work almost as good on an Xbox console to whatever extent we can, because we don't want the experience to be different between the platforms," Rasmus Højengaard, director of creative development at Crytek, told Eurogamer.
Click to expand...

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/25/crytek-on-fusing-crysis-1-crysis-2-and-district-9/

Many people set their furrowed brows to maximum anger (known in some places as a warface) and rallied against Crysis 2. I wasn’t one of them. It was, in many ways, a far more directed experience than Crysis 1, but it was still far from being Modern Warfare in a snazzy pair of robo-pants. That said, when word got out that Crysis 3 was aiming to get back in touch with the series’ more open roots, I may have done a little dance. But then, mid-awkward-convulsion-shuffle-step, I halted with a sudden sobering realization: could it all be too good to be true? Fortunately, this entire series of events took place at a Crysis 3 event in San Francisco yesterday, so I immediately turned and asked director of creative development Rasmus Hojengaard. Here’s what he told me.

“It’s kinda in the middle on the [spectrum between Crysis 1 and 2],” Hojengaard began. “We still see huge advantages in having more condensed, controlled paths like in Crysis 2, and we also see advantages in going much broader whenever that supports the experience we want to convey. Obviously, we’re not gonna have big, full islands to explore like in Far Cry or Crysis 1, but we will definitely have areas utilizing our Seven Wonders of the Rainforest that support grand epic scale more than the [demoed] swamp theme does – which is kind of a claustrophobic and nasty place.”

“So we’re using advantages of either of these scenarios whenever it fits a story beat or gameplay experience or whatever we want to convey. And then, from a locations point of a view, we have an ability to push more on the actual premise of the location because this is an artificially grown rainforest. We can make it a rainforest beyond a real rainforest and a city beyond a real city. So our dynamic range is bigger than it was with either of the previous games individually.”

But is it really? I mean, if Crytek wanted a bigger “dynamic range,” why take yet another bite out of one of gaming’s quickly rotting settings: the Big Apple? Crysis 2′s New York City was nice and all, but Crysis 3 takes place 20 years after its predecessor. The world’s an entirely different place. Surely main character Prophet might be up for a little globe-trotting and sightseeing, right?
Click to expand...

Given EA's and Crytek's propensity for hyperbole, at this stage I am treating anything they have to say with a very large grain of salt.
 
^^ What possible advantages could there be for making corridors vs open spaces? (other than less development time)

I just want to see them return to their roots with a badass Far Cry 3.
 
Mokkat said:
Meh, I'll pass. The franchise and company has become too large and multiplatform-focused for their own good.

Crysis 1 was a damn classic, upgrading the Far Cry formula, with predator elements. Also it had good storytelling and pacing. A great free roam linear and replayable game. And thats not mentioning the graphics.

Crysis 2 was balls. From a newcomer's viewpoint, it was another brick in the generic console shooter wall - from a pc-gamer, fan and sequel-anticipator's view, it was bad.

All I want to see from this company now, is evolution of their engine, so it can be the next UDK
Click to expand...

I could not agree more...and I actually didn't mind Crysis 2. The problem was that it didn't even approach the level of awesome that Crysis 1 did - in graphics, in story and in pacing.
 
I can't wait. I loved Crysis 2, even though it didn't wrap up C1 as I wanted. I never finished playing it on PC , I am now playing it on Veteran on PS3. I still love every second of it.
 
limits of crappy console tech, pretty much limits this game to crysis 2 junk. not to mention they are desperate to create another COD. every change has been towards that direction. i havent enjoyed a FPS since crysis and that because every new FPS just wants to emulate COD terrible level design and unskippable cut scene, pure trash.
 
Crysis 2 played nothing like COD, at least in the SP. If you think they are comparable you are nuts.
 
ikarinokami said:
limits of crappy console tech, pretty much limits this game to crysis 2 junk. not to mention they are desperate to create another COD. every change has been towards that direction. i havent enjoyed a FPS since crysis and that because every new FPS just wants to emulate COD terrible level design and unskippable cut scene, pure trash.
Click to expand...

You clearly have not played Crysis 2. It's nothing like COD.

Crysis 1 was an unoptimized pos that I want to forget. 2 was much better.. 3 will probably be very similar to 2. So i'll wait till its 15$ or less.
 
i have cryis 2 with the maldoh mod and it's crap. its COD, they can pretend otherwise but that's all it is, your one rails from the first moment your heli gets shot down.

there is nothing unoptimized about crysis, it's called not making comprises, there is a different. GTA 4 is unoptimized. I would suggest you get an actually video card, like 680GTX and max out the crysis. the diference between the two is clear. 90% of crysis is destructable, most of the plast move, the fidelity of the dirt, the water is amazing. is it, overkill, nope, crysis was to me, what was theoretical possiblity. that fact that when it came out, it couldn't be run on any machine at it max does not make it unopitmized.

The game ran and looked perfectly fine at mid-level.
 
I tend to play the Crysis games in VERY short bursts. I also try to keep an open mind when I play them, and only play it like a typical run and gun shooter, with some minor stealth portions of course.

If you try to get too far into the "let's make sense of this sh*t" thinking, the game really comes at you with a "well, that's disappointing" bullet.

My 2 cents.
 
drako said:
Crysis 2 played nothing like COD, at least in the SP. If you think they are comparable you are nuts.
Click to expand...

I only ever tried the multiplayer demo and it behaved exactly like Call of Duty with nanosuits.
 
That may be. I wouldn't know about the MP. But the singleplayer was not like that of COD. I never saw infinitely respawning enemies, most of the guns felt unique, the combat areas were much larger than in COD, and the graphics blow COD's out of the water... after the DX11 patch they are at least comparable to Crysis.
 
drako said:
That may be. I wouldn't know about the MP. But the singleplayer was not like that of COD. I never saw infinitely respawning enemies, most of the guns felt unique, the combat areas were much larger than in COD, and the graphics blow COD's out of the water... after the DX11 patch they are at least comparable to Crysis.
Click to expand...

Yeah. And I think the potential issue here is that "like CoD" tends to be thrown around these days to mean "generic shooter". I agree that the MP feels very generic, other than the Nanosuit which Dan mentioned.
 
drako said:
That may be. I wouldn't know about the MP. But the singleplayer was not like that of COD. I never saw infinitely respawning enemies, most of the guns felt unique, the combat areas were much larger than in COD, and the graphics blow COD's out of the water... after the DX11 patch they are at least comparable to Crysis.
Click to expand...

Sorry,but in no way are the graphics comparable. One was made with an engine that would put any console on it's knees begging for mercy. The other was made with an engine that is basically a bastardized,watered down version that the consoles could handle.The patch was a joke rushed out the door in a halfhearted attempt to placated PC gamers.
 
michael.pa2 said:
Sorry,but in no way are the graphics comparable. One was made with an engine that would put any console on it's knees begging for mercy. The other was made with an engine that is basically a bastardized,watered down version that the consoles could handle.The patch was a joke rushed out the door in a halfhearted attempt to placated PC gamers.
Click to expand...

yes, despite supporting the entire feature set of the engine that came before it, while adding considerable refinement and more on top, it is a blatantly watered down pos. makes sense
 
I'm not sure my system will handle part 1, so I've never played it....
 
Lol, new Crysis every year now, so is this turning into CoD 2.0?

Graphics look like they aren't getting any better either.
 
xIronCrossx said:
Lol, new Crysis every year now, so is this turning into CoD 2.0?

Graphics look like they aren't getting any better either.
Click to expand...

Except they haven't been coming out every year and probably won't.

Shoot, I liked part 2 especially after the eye candy patches. I know I'll like this one, too.
 
Whoops, every other year then. I forgot this was EA and not Activision. (Look Medal of Honor and soon to be Battlefield, at least they hinted at it).

To be honest I was disappointed how bad Crysis 2 looked in a lot of the areas. And holy shit does it run badly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
xIronCrossx said:
Whoops, every other year then. I forgot this was EA and not Activision. (Look Medal of Honor and soon to be Battlefield, at least they hinted at it).

To be honest I was disappointed how bad Crysis 2 looked in a lot of the areas. And holy shit does it run badly.
Click to expand...
It does? It ran beautifully for me compared to Crysis and really didn't look that far off from it either IMO.
 
xIronCrossx said:
Whoops, every other year then. I forgot this was EA and not Activision. (Look Medal of Honor and soon to be Battlefield, at least they hinted at it).

To be honest I was disappointed how bad Crysis 2 looked in a lot of the areas. And holy shit does it run badly.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you managed to get it to run badly, but it ran like butter on my system. For how good it looked, I'd say it was very, very well optimized.
 
ran super smooth on my rig but my driver would crash here and there in the middle of a game...
 
AMD Crossfire drivers blew chunks for a long time for Crysis 2...but that seemed to be AMD's issue, not Cryteks. The game looked pretty damn good, IMO.
 
socK said:
I don't know how you managed to get it to run badly, but it ran like butter on my system. For how good it looked, I'd say it was very, very well optimized.
Click to expand...
Kicking in Ultra details post-DX11 and content patches will do that. Crytek decided it would be worthwhile to tessellate completely flat polygons in that configuration, so performance tanks. In all other cases, performance is very good.
 
wonderfield said:
Kicking in Ultra details post-DX11 and content patches will do that. Crytek decided it would be worthwhile to tessellate completely flat polygons in that configuration, so performance tanks. In all other cases, performance is very good.
Click to expand...

Yeah, supposedly if you just turn Object Detail one notch below max (whatever it's called) performance shoots way up with little to no IQ change.
 
defiant007 said:
Gameplay trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EEW4D4mJOW4

No sight of that sand box gameplay Yerli was touting in the introduction. At least they showcased the game using the PC version.
Click to expand...

Complete freedom and sandbox gameplay on a 10-metre-wide bridge!

Graphics look no different from Crysis 2 either and the same sound effects for the guns are being used. All of this "we learned our lesson...honest!" shit just doesn't seem to have any basis in reality.
 
Plague_Injected said:
Complete freedom and sandbox gameplay on a 10-metre-wide bridge!

Graphics look no different from Crysis 2 either and the same sound effects for the guns are being used. All of this "we learned our lesson...honest!" shit just doesn't seem to have any basis in reality.
Click to expand...

Still too early to make the final call IMO.

If the PC version comes out of the gate with DX11 and all the other stuff that they patched late into Crysis 2 I think that goes some ways right there. It's some time aways yet.
 
Q-BZ said:
Still too early to make the final call IMO.

If the PC version comes out of the gate with DX11 and all the other stuff that they patched late into Crysis 2 I think that goes some ways right there. It's some time aways yet.
Click to expand...

I don't particularly trust Yerli but I had more fun with Crysis 2 than I did 1 so I am a little interested in this one.
 
eggrock said:
Let's keep our expectations realistic for Crysis 3. I think we can reasonably expect a game that pushes every PC past the next three future generations of GPUs, but at the same time runs flawlessly with settings maxed on Eyefinity resolutions, runs on the highest settings with three-year old GPUs, has 8192x8192 textures, is unlike any other FPS in the world (and fun) and has the best, most unique multiplayer ever. And the demo should be the full game, completely unlocked.

Expecting anything more than that is simply unreasonable.

Meanwhile, in the real world:

- Cevat Yerli blabs more BS on gaming sites
- Everyone buys what Yerli says
- Crysis 3 released
- Trolled to piss on [H] forums (Most people actually like the game.)
- Crytek blames piracy
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I'm now just reading this great post. My thoughts exactly.
 
Superhuman said:
I think even before the DX11 patch Crysis 2 was one of the most beautiful looking games I've ever played.

However, I'm not the biggest fan of the gameplay itself and I'll wait till it's $10 before I buy (like I did with Crysis 1, Warhead, and Crysis 2).
Click to expand...

I would remove the "I think"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top