Crysis 3 TBA April 16th?

Duggy747

This pic was briefly up on Origin before being pulled down:



EA gave Game Informer this statement following it:

"The best kept secret in shooters just can't be contained. Stay tuned for more information on April 16."

I played Crysis 2 again just recently. This time with the latest patches it ran like butter on my middling machine. I enjoyed it for what it was, shoot the shìt out of everything and watch NY crumble but wasn't one of the best games I played last year.

Will the latest, high-ranged GPU's be deemed obsolete this time round? :pac:

Headshot

For the love of god please let the A.I be actually smart

I enjoyed Crysis 2 but mg the A.I has to be the worse iv seen in a big game for along time

Kiith

Best kept secret in shooters? Hah!

I don't really care to be honest. Still haven't cleared the 1st one, and haven't touched the 2nd. Might at some stage, but it just doesn't look that good. Shooters have to do something pretty special to get my interested these days....and being graphically impressive isn't enough.

Kirby

First one was a good game. It was beautiful and if you modded the ini slightly(made energy last longer) is was an absolute blast to play. Chucking soldiers around and stealthing through the jungle Rambo style. That snow level coming down the mountain with the blue aliens is still jaw dropping.

Crysis 2 two was an ugly, linear, console mess that has very little in common with the original.

Crysis 3 will be more of the same. They have forgotten their roots and the sad fact is that the money is in the console market. Hence another fugly scrawl that will have to run on six year old technology and will cater to the herp-a-derp console style of game design.

I like nearly all games out there. I'll play anything and enjoy it. I own all 3 current consoles and there are some brilliant games on it. I'm not a PC elitist and I'm not hard to please, honestly. I just think games should be made as good as they can be. Crysis 2 felt like it was being with a checklist.....made by the numbers.....just for sales.

It's also a bit odd that when you see that promo picture shot in full size.....its clearly a very overweight man in that nano suit

gizmo

Kirby wrote: »

First one was a good game. It was beautiful and if you modded the ini slightly(made energy last longer) is was an absolute blast to play. Chucking soldiers around and stealthing through the jungle Rambo style. That snow level coming down the mountain with the blue aliens is still jaw dropping.

Crysis 2 two was an ugly, linear, console mess that has very little in common with the original.

Crysis 3 will be more of the same. They have forgotten their roots and the sad fact is that the money is in the console market. Hence another fugly scrawl that will have to run on six year old technology and will cater to the herp-a-derp console style of game design.

I like nearly all games out there. I'll play anything and enjoy it. I own all 3 current consoles and there are some brilliant games on it. I'm not a PC elitist and I'm not hard to please, honestly. I just think games should be made as good as they can be. Crysis 2 felt like it was being with a checklist.....made by the numbers.....just for sales.

It's also a bit odd that when you see that promo picture shot in full size.....its clearly a very overweight man in that nano suit

Kindly explain a) the existence of Demon and Dark Souls and b) the fact that PC owners are clamoring for the Dark Souls port.

Next, explain why from all previews and early playthroughs so far, The Witcher 2, a game designed specifically for the PC, has been received so warmly on the 360.

The point being, Crysis 2 and its ilk didn't have **** game design because they were on console, they had **** game design because the game design was ****. Even if you ignore the technological limitations of the consoles, the design was what was flawed here, which has practically nothing to do with the platform choice when a bit of thought is put into it.

TerrorFirmer

Crysis 2 was still a decent game, and you can hardly blame them for designing it primarily with consoles in mind, given that the market is about 5 times bigger.

I actually downloaded Crysis original last night for my Xbox - it was only 15 euro - and it's actually a great port, having a blast playing it. Will pick up Crysis 2 afterwards again now that it's mega cheap.

Azza

I enjoyed all 3 Crysis games so far so will be picking this up unless the reviews are dreadfull.

I'd probably rate orginal Crysis as the best in the series so far but I thought Warheard and Crysis 2 were also good.

Gameplay is excellent and the graphics in the series are amazing (IMO they are the best looking games made so far) but story wise the series is pretty lame and I hope they go some way to address that in the 3rd game.

ShadowHearth

Surely that can't be brand new crysis 3? No info on it at all and we just had crysis 2.
It might be some sort of expansion. Still no info on it....

Duggy747

The 1st game is great fun to play, even if it does go a bit downhill after it switches to an alien shooter.

Warhead was enjoyable, too, but had absolutely horrific and hilariously bad cutscenes.

Crysis 2 was decent, didn't reinvent anything but I didn't find it a bore, either. It was quite linear which it tried to cover up with multiple routes to a checkpoint (choice of sewer, road or scaffolding :pac:) and the AI was pretty horrific with some of the enemies being complete and utter morons.

Hopefully, Crysis 3 will address the problems that dogged the previous game but I'm not holding out on anything. If it's any way decent I'll play it.

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Surely that can't be brand new crysis 3? No info on it at all and we just had crysis 2.
It might be some sort of expansion. Still no info on it....

It's most definitely Crysis 3.

As for the Crysis vs. Warhead debate, personally I preferred the later. The game felt more focused overall and the level of optimisation Crytek had done on the engine really paid off, making it a far more enjoyable experience when playing at the higher settings.

ShadowHearth

gizmo wrote: »

It's most definitely Crysis 3.

As for the Crysis vs. Warhead debate, personally I preferred the later. The game felt more focused overall and the level of optimisation Crytek had done on the engine really paid off, making it a far more enjoyable experience when playing at the higher settings.

would they release it with such small notice and so low on info?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

april 16th is the announcement.. not the game release

N64

After playing crysis 2, I think I will pass :rolleyes:

briany

The news doesn't particularly excite me. Crysis 2 was a perfectly decent game which would've been considered great had it not been in the shadow of the first. In most ways, it was a step back. The graphics were probably improved but those improvements were so incremental in nature that only graphics enthusiasts really notice the advancements over the original if there were any. The gameplay was tedious at times and the level layouts reduced the strategic element - there was more than one closed in courtyard type area to clear. I know the console market is bigger and that's fine but the trend for so many series to descend into a run and gun fest says to me that this is what the majority of gamers seem to want. Resident Evil, Splinter Cell, Silent Hill, Crysis have all had their series suffer from this disease. Shame.

armitage_skanks

I liked the original Crysis, I thought Crysis 2 was pretty crap though.

I assume Crysis 3 will be along the same lines as 2.

I don't want to get into a consoles vs PC argument but there's no doubt that consoles are one of the reason that Crysis 2 was a step backwards in scope from Crysis 1.

johnny_ultimate

armitage_skanks wrote: »

I don't want to get into a consoles vs PC argument but there's no doubt that consoles are one of the reason that Crysis 2 was a step backwards in scope from Crysis 1.

No, it isn't. It's because Crytek spend more money on technology than level designers and gameplay.

armitage_skanks

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

No, it isn't. It's because Crytek spend more money on technology than level designers and gameplay.

Learn to read. I said a step back in scope.

gizmo

armitage_skanks wrote: »

I liked the original Crysis, I thought Crysis 2 was pretty crap though.

I assume Crysis 3 will be along the same lines as 2.

I don't want to get into a consoles vs PC argument but there's no doubt that consoles are one of the reason that Crysis 2 was a step backwards in scope from Crysis 1.

Really? Then why can you buy Crysis 1 for the 360 and PS3 with the only difference being a scaling back of foliage and general downgrading of graphics?

Kiith

gizmo wrote: »

Really? Then why can you buy Crysis 1 for the 360 and PS3 with the only difference being a scaling back of foliage and general downgrading of graphics?

To be fair, it's been on the pc for over 5 years now.

One thing consoles designers do, and do very well, is use limited tech to do amazing things. It's one of the biggest advantages of consoles.

armitage_skanks

gizmo wrote: »

Really? Then why can you buy Crysis 1 for the 360 and PS3 with the only difference being a scaling back of foliage and general downgrading of graphics?

Again, read before posting.

Crysis was released in 2007. It pushed the boundaries both graphically and also in almost every other way - the AI, the sandbox, the seamless map size etc. The scope of the game is amazing even today.

Crysis 2 was released 4 years later. If it was PC only, it is reasonable to assume they would have pushed those boundaries even further 4 years later.

But they didn't. Because it would be impossible to push the boundaries further and still have it run on consoles.

Therefore, consoles are ONE of the reason that Crysis 2 was a step backwards in scope from Crysis 1.

Its a simple and factual statement.

johnny_ultimate

armitage_skanks wrote: »

Learn to read. I said a step back in scope.

In fairness, the scope of Crysis 2 was quite significant. City large, in fact. Yeah, the environments were more closed, but I'd rather that then a lot of dead space sometimes. Open isn't always better.

That was, by a distance, the least of the problems with the game IMO! And since Crytek have proven themselves consistently unable to make a game of consistent quality (Far Cry and Crysis 1 are both heavily criticised for their second halves) I don't think it is consoles that are the root of the problem. One factor in a noxious brew, I guess, and if that's all you're saying fair enough.

It's just a shame that sometimes you read threads like this (not directed at you, but some of the other posters above) and you'd swear there's never been a good game on a console, when in fact there's just as many or more than you'd get on PC. It's such a round about argument, and one seemingly without end.

briany

Crysis wasn't a step backward graphically but it wasn't a step forward either. At least not a perceptible one. Maybe the improvements were mostly under the hood to make for a smoother running game engine.

With Crysis 2 it feels like Crytek were trying to straddle the divide between the sandbox nature of the first game and something that would appeal to the lucrative Call of Duty/Gears of War market which is a lucrative market but what you end up with is a game that doesn't really know what it wants to be.

gizmo

armitage_skanks wrote: »

Again, read before posting.

Crysis was released in 2007. It pushed the boundaries both graphically and also in almost every other way - the AI, the sandbox, the seamless map size etc. The scope of the game is amazing even today.

Yet people still criticise it for being all style over substance, a flashy tech demo with poor gameplay and a pretty mediocre FPS in general. There's plenty of threads on this forum to back that up.

The AI in the game was also absolutely nothing to phone home about.

Plopping the player in the middle of a jungle and telling him to go nuts wasn't that impressive in terms of scope at the time either. Sure it was impressive given the graphics but in terms of an evolution of gameplay? Nope.

armitage_skanks wrote: »

Crysis 2 was released 4 years later. If it was PC only, it is reasonable to assume they would have pushed those boundaries even further 4 years later.

But they didn't. Because it would be impossible to push the boundaries further and still have it run on consoles.

You mean push the boundaries by putting the player into a far denser city environment which would technically be more difficult to render/drive than the more open island layout of the original?

Sure they could have made the levels larger and less linear and pushed DX11 out on release but then they'd be back to early Crysis-era when **** all people could actually play their game.

The CryEngine is actually pretty scalable so there would have been no harm in having a wider disparity between the versions but let's throw this question out there, how many people actually bought Crysis 1 for full price at release? I'd wager the number will be extremely small. So yes, there was more than likely added emphasis put on the console versions of Crysis 2 but the actual core design wouldn't have needed to suffer because of it.

So yes, I did read your post, I just disagree with nearly all of it.

armitage_skanks

gizmo wrote: »

So yes, I did read your post, I just disagree with nearly all of it.

Clearly you didn't because all I said is that that Crysis 2 had less scope than Crysis 1, and consoles were one reason.

So unless you are arguing that Crysis 2 had more scope, I don't know how you can disagree with it.

Andy!!

gizmo wrote: »

Really? Then why can you buy Crysis 1 for the 360 and PS3 with the only difference being a scaling back of foliage and general downgrading of graphics?

Uh, so Crytek can get more money? Not sure what your point is... you seem to be agreeing with him. Unless I've missed the obvious and you are being sarcastic.

Enjoying Crysis multiplayer on that version you have on 360/PS3?

gizmo

armitage_skanks wrote: »

Clearly you didn't because all I said is that that Crysis 2 had less scope than Crysis 1, and consoles were one reason.

So unless you are arguing that Crysis 2 had more scope, I don't know how you can disagree with it.

Nope, it was your definition of scope in relation to the original game and how it changed with the sequel which I disagreed with.

Andy!! wrote: »

Uh, so Crytek can get more money? Not sure what your point is... you seem to be agreeing with him. Unless I've missed the obvious and you are being sarcastic.

Nope, the point made was that the scope of the sequel was reduced from the first because the consoles couldn't handle it. Crysis being released on the consoles later invalidates this because the only thing that suffered during the porting process was the graphical detail, while the design was unchanged. This relates to my original point about Crysis 2 failing due to poor design rather than simply being a multi-platform title.

armitage_skanks then argued that had Crysis 2 been PC only then the scope could have increased which is a valid point. Again though, given the slow sales (and as a result, lower sale price) of the original I can't see how Crytek, as a company, could have justified both doing this and keeping their licence-able engine PC only.

Andy!! wrote: »

Enjoying Crysis multiplayer on that version you have on 360/PS3?

Nope, I bought Crysis on launch for the PC to justify the cost of my last rig.

Andy!!

gizmo wrote: »

Nope, the point made was that the scope of the sequel was reduced from the first because the consoles couldn't handle it.

I very much doubt that was the inspiration behind the setting.

5uspect

I didn't like Crysis 2. It was too much of a generic linear CoD clone. The first game and Warhead weren't exactly the greatest games ever but they had their large environments which made them fun to play, and come back to. I'll pass on C3 for now.

ShadowHearth

In my opinion there is way too much bitching about crysis 2. It was not as bad as people making it out to be.
I enjoyed it. It had really cool parts and some interesting stuff. Yes, it was limited As sandbox, but it was still amazing place to be in. Destroyed new York looked class.
I enjoyed crysis 2 more then crysis 1 ( yup, I said it ). Crysis had only one good part, then it went balls up when you entered ship.

The one thing I hated about crysis 2, was the sneakiness of crytek by giving only dx9 for pc. That was just low blow to pc crowd.

dreamers75

Regardless of version its a poor fps thats looks pretty in parts.

Whoever made the 1st levels of Far Cry should be made Lead Game Designer and told no evil monkeys or aliens.

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

In my opinion there is way too much bitching about crysis 2. It was not as bad as people making it out to be.
I enjoyed it. It had really cool parts and some interesting stuff. Yes, it was limited As sandbox, but it was still amazing place to be in. Destroyed new York looked class.
I enjoyed crysis 2 more then crysis 1 ( yup, I said it ). Crysis had only one good part, then it went balls up when you entered ship.

The one thing I hated about crysis 2, was the sneakiness of crytek by giving only dx9 for pc. That was just low blow to pc crowd.

Certainly agree with the first part but the second paragraph is a little off for two somewhat related reasons.

Technically speaking you can't just make a game use DirectX 11 features, there's a substantial investment required in order to use the feature set effectively, an investment which will see pretty low returns since there's still a lot of people without capable DX11 cards, many who still use Windows XP and of course, the fact that the console is a pretty large market. That's not saying Crytek really shouldn't have had their DX11 implementation ready for launch but it's a pretty important point when you consider...

Crysis didn't sell well. In fact, it sold like total ass, relatively speaking at least. In its first two weeks on sale it sold less than 100k copies. It took about two months for it to break the million mark and, as we've seen time and time again, the price drop on these titles is severe to say the least so it's quite likely that the vast vast majority of those sales would have been well below RRP. The game eventually went on to become profitable but that took almost a full year to happen. Then you have the huge piracy figures for the game, figures from Torrentfreak show it was downloaded almost a million times in the year after release, not the worst but certainly in the top handful for 2008.

My point with all of this? Saying it's a "low blow" to the PC crowd is meaningless. Crytek owe the wider PC gaming community absolutely nothing, especially preferential treatment for Crysis 2. There was no outpouring of support for the first game and, as a result, Crytek were forced to switch to console development in order to remain profitable in the long term. The result of such a move? Crysis 2 sold as many copies in 3 months as Crysis 1 did in 3 years. Oh and those piracy figures? Again according to Torrentfreak, Crysis 2 was the most pirated PC game of 2011, except this time with almost 4m downloads.