[Game] Crysis 3

[Fedorov]

Crysis did fine

I do not think so.

Crysis did not sell nearly as much as they expected.

They made a game thats only aimed to be played with top end computers, and even those can't max it out with stable 60fps, (and was way worse back on release day). A lot of people pirated just so see how it ran on their PCs, then they didn't buy because it either did not run properly, or they just got bored quickly.

The first missions were good and beautiful, but then, the novelty settles and shooting at bullet-sponge koreans gets old. Then you pretty much want to skip all the content to get to the end and see the story (Which i quite enjoyed). At least in my case, it became a game of cloaking and running past enemies, because the shooting mechanics were not fun at all.

Crysis 2 reduces the tactical element greatly which is bad, but the shooting and sneaking mechanics seem much better, and the graphics very well optimized. It looks incredibly good for the performance you get. The metal shaders are a bit off, the story too detached from the epic story of the original, and there is no big jungle or cool beaches of course, but overall, I think Crysis 2 is a more solid title than the first Crysis was, at least I found it more fun to play, as I did not try to skip any content like I did with Crysis + Warhead.

Besides, Crysis 1 did not have that much tactical choice, it's not an open world game like, lets say ArmA. Crysis is still a corridor shooter, just with wider corridors, and while Crysis 2 have narrower corridors, they are still much wider than in other games like Call of Duty.

 

[Heisenberg]

For me, there has been no new releases for the Crysis series after Warhead.

Crytek are dead to me, for compromising their artistic integrity and turning their backs on their original playerbase.

Crysis did fine, and then they went multiplat, changing the gameplay to be more cod-like and overall ruining the way the game played. The suit playstyle, from the little gameplay i could bear, is far removed from the simple and intuitive layout from the first two games.

The game felt more linear with really no options.

I'll stick to the first two games, because what they did to the series is unforgivable.

Compromising their artistic integrity? Again they did what they thought was right and not because EA told them "change the alien color from blue to red, that way sales will improve by 200%!". As for turning their back on the original playerbase. Pretty much everybody hated the Aliens in Crysis and the MP, while having some good ideas, was a complete mess. The way they streamlined the nanosuit effectively didn't change ****.

Also the gameplay is far from CoD-like. It's more linear than Crysis of course but most times you still have different routes and ways to advance. Plus you seem to be forgetting that a big part of the later Crysis 1 part was pretty much on rails.

Maybe they could've allowed for bigger maps allowing you to take different streets to advance, but that would've probably been impossible as a multiplatform title.

I didn't like the path they chose with Crysis 2 compared to 1 either, but still enjoyed it for what it was. Just don't even start with this "They sold their artistic integrity to EA" bull****. Crysis 1 sold ok but was also as a matter of fact pirated to hell. Not at least because they were raising the bar in terms of graphics and many people sa it as a graphics benchmark to pirate. So instead of sticking to pc exclusive gfx pushing titles that every 2nd person will pirate it's only logical to only slowly improve the engine when it's already on top and bring it to console and thus a wider audience, because like I sad, if I was a dev I'd like as many peopleas possible to be able to play the game.

 

[CandleJack]

Compromising their artistic integrity? Again they did what they thought was right and not because EA told them "change the alien color from blue to red, that way sales will improve by 200%!". As for turning their back on the original playerbase. Pretty much everybody hated the Aliens in Crysis and the MP, while having some good ideas, was a complete mess. The way they streamlined the nanosuit effectively didn't change ****.

Also the gameplay is far from CoD-like. It's more linear than Crysis of course but most times you still have different routes and ways to advance. Plus you seem to be forgetting that a big part of the later Crysis 1 part was pretty much on rails.

Maybe they could've allowed for bigger maps allowing you to take different streets to advance, but that would've probably been impossible as a multiplatform title.

I didn't like the path they chose with Crysis 2 compared to 1 either, but still enjoyed it for what it was. Just don't even start with this "They sold their artistic integrity to EA" bull****. Crysis 1 sold ok but was also as a matter of fact pirated to hell. Not at least because they were raising the bar in terms of graphics and many people sa it as a graphics benchmark to pirate. So instead of sticking to pc exclusive gfx pushing titles that every 2nd person will pirate it's only logical to only slowly improve the engine when it's already on top and bring it to console and thus a wider audience, because like I sad, if I was a dev I'd like as many peopleas possible to be able to play the game.

I really couldn't stand the new suit mechanics. That was one of the main factors for me quitting it.
Because of that, i never really played it. It would be too difficult to force myself to play it.

I think everyone is over-reacting about the pirating, while i don't do it myself i think that most games now blame pirating instantly as soon as they realise the game didn't do as well as it should have. It may be a legitimate concern, but it's not as big a reason as not making the game meet expectations.

You could really tell straight away it was a console port, which isn't the way to go and almost instantly made me quit. I'll just leave the thread now because i didn't force myself to continue Crysis 2.

 

[Fedorov]

I think everyone is over-reacting about the pirating, while i don't do it myself i think that most games now blame pirating instantly as soon as they realise the game didn't do as well as it should have. It may be a legitimate concern, but it's not as big a reason as not making the game meet expectations.

The game was widely pirated, and companies foolishly blame piracy for their problems.

What they don't see is that piracy is not a cause but an effect, probably the cause of that effect is the same that leads the game to have low sales, and thus they tie low sales to piracy, as they often come together even if there is a deeper cause for both that they don't see.

 

[Flogger23m]

Crysis is still a corridor shooter, just with wider corridors, and while Crysis 2 have narrower corridors, they are still much wider than in other games like Call of Duty.

Crysis 1 was anything but a corridor shooter. You could cut across a map in a boat by passing many enemy locations, sneak around in a jungle traveling roughly twice the distance, or do one, go back to the starting point, and and try the other path(s).

Now the last three missions where indeed very linear with little movement freedom (traveling down the hill and the carrier), but the first part of the game was certainly open ended. It wasn't an open world game, but there is a difference between an open ended game, open world, and corridor. CoD would indeed be a corridor shooter as you can not go back and are constantly pushed forward and every few minutes a section of the map is cut off (by jumping off a large height ect.). Very different from Crysis.

Weapons were indeed better in 2, but they were rather nice in 1/Warhead.

 

[hockeywarrior]

Crysis 1 was anything but a corridor shooter. You could cut across a map in a boat by passing many enemy locations, sneak around in a jungle traveling roughly twice the distance, or do one, go back to the starting point, and and try the other path(s).

Now the last three missions where indeed very linear with little movement freedom (traveling down the hill and the carrier), but the first part of the game was certainly open ended. It wasn't an open world game, but there is a difference between an open ended game, open world, and corridor. CoD would indeed be a corridor shooter as you can not go back and are constantly pushed forward and every few minutes a section of the map is cut off (by jumping off a large height ect.). Very different from Crysis.

Weapons were indeed better in 2, but they were rather nice in 1/Warhead.

I have to agree with you here. Calling Crysis a corridor shooter would be quite silly. I thought the original was quite a good game if you could run it properly. Crysis 2 WAS a corridor shooter, at least mostly, and I hope Crysis 3 goes back to its roots more.

One thing that irks me was that Crysis 2's storyline was so horrible. One big plothole they never cleared up after Crysis 1 was what happened to Nomad and Psycho ... both of those characters survived the previous game. If they don't return in Crysis 3, I will be very disappointed.

 

[Fedorov]

Crysis 1 was anything but a corridor shooter. You could cut across a map in a boat by passing many enemy locations, sneak around in a jungle traveling roughly twice the distance, or do one, go back to the starting point, and and try the other path(s).

Now the last three missions where indeed very linear with little movement freedom (traveling down the hill and the carrier), but the first part of the game was certainly open ended. It wasn't an open world game, but there is a difference between an open ended game, open world, and corridor. CoD would indeed be a corridor shooter as you can not go back and are constantly pushed forward and every few minutes a section of the map is cut off (by jumping off a large height ect.). Very different from Crysis.

Weapons were indeed better in 2, but they were rather nice in 1/Warhead.

Well, I recall being limited by walls of trees and "natural" terrain blocks. Since I was trying to skip past the combat the whole time, it probably became more obvious to me. And no, I'm not saying its a CoD, I'm saying its just more open than cod, but you still have to follow a path (a wide one, but still a path), and since what matters here is the tactical choices the game gives you, I don't see that big change from Crysis 1 to 2.

I'm just saying that, while Crysis 1 gives you a bit more tactical choices than 2, they are both just OK, and neither gives you a total tactical freedom, so it shouldn't be (IMO) the main selling point of the game, as there are other games that beat it in that category. What I mean is that people are probably overreacting about Crysis 2's limitations compared to the first. I've read comments that make it sound like Crytek has killed their cats.

 

[Flogger23m]

One thing that irks me was that Crysis 2's storyline was so horrible. One big plothole they never cleared up after Crysis 1 was what happened to Nomad and Psycho ... both of those characters survived the previous game. If they don't return in Crysis 3, I will be very disappointed.

Spoiler!

What is worse is the fact that they brought up the virus plot, yet failed to explain it. Why does it stop affecting people? The Marines, Crynet, you, and other civilians clearly aren't at risk from it. After the first few levels the virus becomes entirely forgotten. Either that or I don't recall what happens though I think that is unlikely as I just finished replaying the game.

Well, I recall being limited by walls of trees and "natural" terrain blocks. Since I was trying to skip past the combat the whole time, it probably became more obvious to me. And no, I'm not saying its a CoD, I'm saying its just more open than cod, but you still have to follow a path (a wide one, but still a path), and since what matters here is the tactical choices the game gives you, I don't see that big change from Crysis 1 to 2.

I'm just saying that, while Crysis 1 gives you a bit more tactical choices than 2, they are both just OK, and neither gives you a total tactical freedom, so it shouldn't be (IMO) the main selling point of the game, as there are other games that beat it in that category. What I mean is that people are probably overreacting about Crysis 2's limitations compared to the first. I've read comments that make it sound like Crytek has killed their cats.

Obviously there will be limits to where you can go. Even the Fallout games, which have a huge game world, have limits to the map size. Crysis is by no means an open world game and the maps don't even compare in size so of course there will be limitations. But for the genre (shooter), the maps were very big and open. Yes there were limits, but you had a lot of freedom of movement. Swimming, using a boat, wondering through the jungle, ect. A corriender shooter typically has you constantly moving in one direction, being forward, and not giving you the option to backtrack or choose an alternate path (as there is only one).

I'm going to disagree about Crysis 2 giving you more options. You have to fight the enemy 95% of the time. Stealth or not. With Crysis 1 you can entirely bypass multiple enemy checkpoints, avoid going to some entirely, and there were more options for play style. In Crysis 2 the majority of the situations had you running straight into a group of bad guys... with the option of walking in a sewer or something.

Where as some sections of Crysis 1 gave you the option to use a sniper rifle and pick off enemy from 400 meters away from an elevated position, to draw the enemies out into the jungle and pick them off with silent non-lethal weapons, or run into the village guns blazing.

Overall I don't think Crysis 2 was an awful game, but it took many steps backwards. On the topic of Crysis 3, I think it will be the same as 2. I also doubt we will see the characters from Crysis 1 making a return. Which is a shame, I thoroughly enjoyed Crysis 1/Warhead, playing around in the editor, and playing Crysis Wars online.

 

[Fedorov]

I'm going to disagree about Crysis 2 giving you more options.

If you mean Crysis 2 giving you more options than Crysis 1, I never said such thing.
I still believe Crysis 2 gives more options than the average shooter though.

 

[LightsabeR]

I still believe Crysis 2 gives more options than the average shooter though.

That's not much of an accomplishment.

 

[Fedorov]

That's not much of an accomplishment.

I didn't say it was. I'm just saying is not as bad as most people claim.

 

[LightsabeR]

I didn't say it was. I'm just saying is not as bad as most people claim.

I got what you meant. I was just pointing out the painful truth.

 

[Flogger23m]

If you mean Crysis 2 giving you more options than Crysis 1, I never said such thing.
I still believe Crysis 2 gives more options than the average shooter though.

I misread then. Yes, it probably does give you more options than your typical FPS game. Which is why I think it is a solid game.

 

[Grabbed_by_the_Spetsnaz]

http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/news/13...cking-used-games-would-be-absolutely-awesome/

Because when it comes down to poor video game sales, it's always the fault of 2nd hand sales or piracy, and never because developers put out shoddy games