Crytek Presents: CRYSIS 3 [PS3, 360]

Well, looks like each one of us heard him say a different thing :LOL: ! I heard him saying that realistic gfx will be achieved from the get go in the next gen, and they have the tech ready but are bound by the current gen hardware.
He said the emphasis is on physics and different art styles in games right now as realistic gfx aren't possible right now. With next gen, that barrier will be gone from the get go.

From UC3/BF3/Crysis2 to totally realistic gfx can't be called subtle !

If u ask me, I am not that interested in it as then game budgets will be at par with CG movie budgets, prices will go theu the roof, companies will collapse with a single flop game, etc, etc. I would rather they keep the costs low and offer more content.
 
RenegadeRocks said:

Gameplay reveal trailer !
Click to expand...

Can't see at all what's going on in that trailer. Such a terribly made trailer, very poor at showing anything, and things cut out so quickly that you don't even have time to process anything you're seeing in your mind. Plus, it makes C3 look like a run-&-gun twitch shooter, which is certainly not the way I play crysis.

I also HATE the alien design in Crysis 2. Super inconsistent with the C1 aliens, and they just look like generic cyborg squids. Utterly horrible design, and they just look like they don't even fit in the world (too comical, against the psuedo-realism setting). Even their technology looks nothing like that used in Crysis 1. I wish that Crytek would have gone back to the alien tech designs in Crysis 1 (that looked more like the squid robots from the matrix).
 
L. Scofield said:
Considering this is a major sequel, impressive would something much better than Crysis 2. This looks on par with C2.

It still looks awesome, but not impressive. TBH, I'm still waiting for a leap like CryEngine 1 to CryEngine 2, but I guess I will have to wait for next-gen for that :(
Click to expand...

Well I dont think it's reasonable to expect that, pretty clear they're crapping out something on the C2 engine in a two year timeframe (which, is pretty much the norm in big franchises aka A Creed, MW). If they even get 5 or 10% better graphics (or just same graphics and clean some things like framerate up) I'll be pleased. I really enjoyed C2 so I'll definitely be there for C3.

Besides that on consoles I think the big leaps are gone, last really big one imo was maybe KZ2 in 2008. Now we just get small increments. So I have not expected big leaps on consoles since well, maybe C2 (and it was maybe medium leap at best). I've felt like for last couple years these consoles are clearly mostly tapped, with C2 being (FOR ME) the probable pinnacle of this generation (to date) more or less, and it on par mostly with a half dozen others. It stands to reason there isn't one super dev team out there that can get 50% more out of these consoles, when hundreds and hundreds of other smart guys have been trying. For every Crytek there is a Dice and a Guerrilla and a 343i.

Now if you're making the old generic why arent they taking advantage of PC gripe from c2, I guess thats another topic and forum.
 
Prophecy2k said:
Can't see at all what's going on in that trailer. Such a terribly made trailer, very poor at showing anything, and things cut out so quickly that you don't even have time to process anything you're seeing in your mind. Plus, it makes C3 look like a run-&-gun twitch shooter, which is certainly not the way I play crysis.

I also HATE the alien design in Crysis 2. Super inconsistent with the C1 aliens, and they just look like generic cyborg squids. Utterly horrible design, and they just look like they don't even fit in the world (too comical, against the psuedo-realism setting). Even their technology looks nothing like that used in Crysis 1. I wish that Crytek would have gone back to the alien tech designs in Crysis 1 (that looked more like the squid robots from the matrix).
Click to expand...

My thoughts as well, im not expecting anything more than a slightly tweaked crysis 2 for consoles with another silly derailed storyline. The pc edition will have some minor facial lift with botox here and there to hide its ageing targeted business demographics of easily impressed and hormonal anxious teens. I would say like the angelina jolie of shooters. Yes its already attatched to the tomb raider series... but the basic idea stands as well.
 
doob said:
My thoughts as well, im not expecting anything more than a slightly tweaked crysis 2 for consoles with another silly derailed storyline. The pc edition will have some minor facial lift with botox here and there to hide its ageing targeted business demographics of easily impressed and hormonal anxious teens. I would say like the angelina jolie of shooters. Yes its already attatched to the tomb raider series... but the basic idea stands as well.
Click to expand...

Yet it has much more depth and freedom than most 90+% of console shooters :rolleyes:

And looking at your posts you seem to play a lot of "BF3" :rolleyes: If any game appeals to "hormonally anxious easily impressed teens"
 
Like I said earlier, this is not Native Nextgen. How can you honestly expect the current consoles to have a similar visual experience as a 680gtx based system? I feel like Crytek is so caught up with their marketing they are loosing common sense here. This is why nextgen consoles should get here asap so that devs can actually create assets that are leaps and bounds ahead of them cyborg squids.
 
Doesn't look bad to me ! A lot of "That looks fantastic !" depends on art direction and Crytek seems to be bad at that, I think thats the reason for the humdrum reception. The aliens, the mechs, the suit guy and the environment, they don't really come together to create a "WoW !" effect.
The second reason is all the gameplay is shown in narrow, constrained spaces, again not inciting a "WoW!" from inside.

I don't think its tech thats unimpressive, its the art that is unimpressive!
Still looking forward to it, as I kindof liked what I played of Crysis 2. it wasn't like Crysis at all, but whatever they did, it was still fun to play after u drudge through the initial few hours.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rangers said:
Yet it has much more depth and freedom than most 90+% of console shooters :rolleyes:

And looking at your posts you seem to play a lot of "BF3" :rolleyes: If any game appeals to "hormonally anxious easily impressed teens"
Click to expand...

And yet this is patently untrue...

Crysis 2 is just a linear as the majority of console and PC shooters (as to be fair, there's no difference between console and PC shooters these days anyway. So it's pretty disingenuous to behave as if there is). The games' complexity or added "depth" as you put it is no less superficial than any other console shooter. Crysis 2 was also a worse game than many other console shooters (imho). So whatever freedom and depth you think it can boast about over other shooters becomes moot when the game fails to even provide as compelling or fun an experience as even more restricted and linear games.

In the end, Crysis 2 should have gone in the direction of an even more open-ended structure to its gameplay than Crysis 1 gave. Both games are linear, but Crysis 1 gave an illusion of freedom to explore and player agency that Crysis 2 never even remotely achieved (I felt like I had more room to manuevre in KZ2, or Halo Reach than I did in Crysis 2).

Crysis 2 should have moved in the direction of something like "Dead Island" in terms of game world structure. That kind of open-world shooter design, coupled with the suit powers and mission structure would have benefitted the gameplay and made you feel even more in control. The engine should surely allow for it, especially given how open and expansive Crysis 1 was (even in the console ports). I wish Crysis 3 would provide me that, but knowing the direction they already took with Crysis 2, I'm not gonna hold my breath.
 
RenegadeRocks said:
Doesn't look bad to me ! A lot of "That looks fantastic !" depends on art direction and Crytek seems to be bad at that, I think thats the reason for the humdrum reception. The aliens, the mechs, the suit guy and the environment, they don't really come together to create a "WoW !" effect.
The second reason is all the gameplay is shown in narrow, constrained spaces, agan not iciting a "WoW!" from inside.

I don't think its tech thats unimpressive, its the art that is unimpressive!
Still looking forward to it, as I kindof liked what I played of Crysis 2. it wasn't like Crysis at all, but whatever they did, it was still fun to play after u drudge through the initial few hours.
Click to expand...

I think you nailed it with these points.

Don't get me wrong, I love the design of the nanosuit. I think it looks pretty badass. The environments look pretty good too. It's just the poor alien and mech designs that seem WAY too out of place. They did in Crysis 2 and it's a shame that not enough people complained enough for them to realise how much it really drags the game down. I don't want to fight these poorly designed enemies again. They should have redsigned them all, OR just call it Crysis:*insert subtitle here* and made it a spin off or expansion to C2 (like Warhead). It's obvious they're reusing lots of their Crysis 2 assets (NY again anyone? :cry: urrghh).

I'm just not impressed so far...
 
Rangers said:
Well I dont think it's reasonable to expect that, pretty clear they're crapping out something on the C2 engine in a two year timeframe (which, is pretty much the norm in big franchises aka A Creed, MW). If they even get 5 or 10% better graphics (or just same graphics and clean some things like framerate up) I'll be pleased. I really enjoyed C2 so I'll definitely be there for C3.

Besides that on consoles I think the big leaps are gone, last really big one imo was maybe KZ2 in 2008. Now we just get small increments. So I have not expected big leaps on consoles since well, maybe C2 (and it was maybe medium leap at best). I've felt like for last couple years these consoles are clearly mostly tapped, with C2 being (FOR ME) the probable pinnacle of this generation (to date) more or less, and it on par mostly with a half dozen others. It stands to reason there isn't one super dev team out there that can get 50% more out of these consoles, when hundreds and hundreds of other smart guys have been trying. For every Crytek there is a Dice and a Guerrilla and a 343i.

Now if you're making the old generic why arent they taking advantage of PC gripe from c2, I guess thats another topic and forum.
Click to expand...

Since C3 was announced for consoles I wasn't expecting any major improvements. This is pretty much exactly what I would expect for another console Crysis. Given that, obviously it's not impressive in the least. No new game coming this gen will be impressive.

Of course, like I said before, just because it's not impressive doesn't mean it looks bad at all. Unlike others (not refering to you), I don't have a binary appreciation of game graphics.

Shifty Geezer said:
You're asking a lot from these OLD boxes!
Click to expand...
Not asking for more, just stating the obvious.
___________________________________

I actually like the alien designs (except for the grunt, that one sucks). The new one, the one that looks like a covenant elite seems particularly badass.

I don't understand why some people hate the designs so much.
 
Prophecy2k said:
Crysis 2 is just a linear as the majority of console and PC shooters (as to be fair, there's no difference between console and PC shooters these days anyway. So it's pretty disingenuous to behave as if there is). The games' complexity or added "depth" as you put it is no less superficial than any other console shooter. Crysis 2 was also a worse game than many other console shooters (imho). So whatever freedom and depth you think it can boast about over other shooters becomes moot when the game fails to even provide as compelling or fun an experience as even more restricted and linear games.
Click to expand...

Don't really agree here, Crysis 2 was more open than most shooters I've played including the Cod games, Killzone games, Gears of War games, Medal of Honor, Resistance games, Deus Ex, etc. It's no where near as open as Crysis 1 though, but I definitely felt that I had far more options on where to go, how to attack, etc, in Crysis 2 than most other shooters except for maybe the Halo shooters. I also thought it was a great game personally, better than most shooters (imho). Most shooters to me fall short whereas Crysis 2 was great fun to play and visually awesome (on pc). Most shooters to me are tired in both their visuals and gameplay.
 
Prophecy2k said:
And yet this is patently untrue...

Crysis 2 is just a linear as the majority of console and PC shooters (as to be fair, there's no difference between console and PC shooters these days anyway. So it's pretty disingenuous to behave as if there is). The games' complexity or added "depth" as you put it is no less superficial than any other console shooter. Crysis 2 was also a worse game than many other console shooters (imho). So whatever freedom and depth you think it can boast about over other shooters becomes moot when the game fails to even provide as compelling or fun an experience as even more restricted and linear games.

In the end, Crysis 2 should have gone in the direction of an even more open-ended structure to its gameplay than Crysis 1 gave. Both games are linear, but Crysis 1 gave an illusion of freedom to explore and player agency that Crysis 2 never even remotely achieved (I felt like I had more room to manuevre in KZ2, or Halo Reach than I did in Crysis 2).

Crysis 2 should have moved in the direction of something like "Dead Island" in terms of game world structure. That kind of open-world shooter design, coupled with the suit powers and mission structure would have benefitted the gameplay and made you feel even more in control. The engine should surely allow for it, especially given how open and expansive Crysis 1 was (even in the console ports). I wish Crysis 3 would provide me that, but knowing the direction they already took with Crysis 2, I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Click to expand...

That's all just nonsense. Some shooter franchises factually more linear than C2:

Killzone
Gears of War
Battlefield (lol, not even close here)
COD (ditto)
Uncharted (if this is a shooter)

It is LESS open than C1, but still more open than most other shooters. You felt like you had more room in KZ2? What part? Can you link any youtube showing this space where you had "more room" in KZ2? Thanks. I just got through with KZ3 and the games are basically corridors. Which is the same with COD and BF of course. C1 gives you open sections. Halo, I didn't list it as more open than Halo because I'm unsure. It probably is though. Like this guy I cant remember most of the games I've completed that well section for section :p http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=471480

I'm just not sure what you're speaking of but if you're equating KZ2 and C2 linearity, you either havent played them or, well really I dont know any other explanation.

This knocking C2 for linearity when it is far LESS linear than the vast majority of todays FPS and that's a FACT is just disingenuous. But people want to keep on their blind C2 hate cause Crytek "spurned" PC's so they do it anyway. If you want a more open world PC shooter play Stalker 2...oh wait that dev went out of business because PC gamers pirated rather than bought.

I didn't play Dead Island, so I dont know, but if you're asking for FPS GTA, well I just dont think any of those exist, so it's not exactly fair to hold C2 to some mythical standard that doesn't exist for the most part, or if it does is a relatively small and unpopular niche (while linear shooters dominate the market). If you want an open world game, buy GTA4 or Just Cause.
 
What i really hope is that Crytek will structure the game as Halo ODST. Such a awesome concept with hub level and missions taking place in sub levels.
 
Rangers said:
That's all just nonsense. Some shooter franchises factually more linear than C2:

Killzone
Gears of War
Battlefield (lol, not even close here)
COD (ditto)
Uncharted (if this is a shooter)

It is LESS open than C1, but still more open than most other shooters. You felt like you had more room in KZ2? What part? Can you link any youtube showing this space where you had "more room" in KZ2? Thanks. I just got through with KZ3 and the games are basically corridors. Which is the same with COD and BF of course. C1 gives you open sections. Halo, I didn't list it as more open than Halo because I'm unsure. It probably is though. Like this guy I cant remember most of the games I've completed that well section for section :p http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=471480

I'm just not sure what you're speaking of but if you're equating KZ2 and C2 linearity, you either havent played them or, well really I dont know any other explanation.

This knocking C2 for linearity when it is far LESS linear than the vast majority of todays FPS and that's a FACT is just disingenuous. But people want to keep on their blind C2 hate cause Crytek "spurned" PC's so they do it anyway. If you want a more open world PC shooter play Stalker 2...oh wait that dev went out of business because PC gamers pirated rather than bought.

I didn't play Dead Island, so I dont know, but if you're asking for FPS GTA, well I just dont think any of those exist, so it's not exactly fair to hold C2 to some mythical standard that doesn't exist for the most part, or if it does is a relatively small and unpopular niche (while linear shooters dominate the market). If you want an open world game, buy GTA4 or Just Cause.
Click to expand...

Ok you obviously didn't read my post properly. I shal requote:

In the end, Crysis 2 should have gone in the direction of an even more open-ended structure to its gameplay than Crysis 1 gave. Both games are linear, but Crysis 1 gave an illusion of freedom to explore and player agency that Crysis 2 never even remotely achieved (I felt like I had more room to manuevre in KZ2, or Halo Reach than I did in Crysis 2).
Click to expand...

See, I even helped you out a bit by bolding a little in there to help out your reading comprehension a little bit.

What I didn't say was that C2 was more linear than KZ2 or Halo Reach. What I was actually speaking about was the ILLUSION of non-linearity in those two games, as well as Crysis 1, that I didn't feel was at all present in Crysis 2. Both those games I mentioned had very linear trudge sections, but the areas didn't FEEL as constricted and corridorish as I FELT Crysis 2 did. Perhaps its an issue with movement speed, especially given that your character in Crysis can move a blistering break-neck speed in C2 compared to your character in KZ2.

Regardless, my point was that Crysis FELT just as linear to me in my experience with the game (played it twice in susccession) as generally every other shooter on the market.

Crysis 1 was a lot better, and to try to behave as though Crysis 2 wasn't considerably more linear than Crysis 1 makes me even think that you yourself haven't really played Crysis 2 recently.

Anyway, my point at the end was that regardless of how open or corridor-ish the level structure and design of both Crysis 1 and 2 are, both games would have benefited from a more open ended mission structure. Crysis 1 did better than 2 in that regard, as you did have optional mission objectives that veared you off the beaten path to complete those before heading towards the main objective. But these could have been expanded upon. Crysis 2 was simply a mess in this regard, as what ever various primary or secondary objectives you had, you were still being funnelled up so tight and restrictive a path that it made no difference whatsoever. Crysis 2 should have at the minimum retained the mission and level structure and size of Crysis 1. It didn't and so I didn't enjoy the game as much.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and you clearly disagree with mine, and that's fine. But don't go around insulting people, or trying to claim they never played the game (effectively calling them a liar) simply because they don't hold the same opinion as you. It isn't becoming of you Rangers, nor this forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Are modern GPU's really offering a worse level of performance than historic GPU's??
Replies
16
Views
2K
Kaotik
Kaotik
L
Xbox 360 and PS3 top graphics
3 4 5
Replies
99
Views
9K
Liandry
L
BRiT
Crysis Trilogy Remastered [2021]
Replies
9
Views
2K
swaaye
S
G
Tech Differences between Switch and 7th Gen (PS3/360) Games
2
Replies
21
Views
6K
GuardHei
G
Cyan
Hunt: Showdown by Crytek, is the future....
Replies
0
Views
525
Cyan
Cyan
Back
Top