Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
September 2, 2014
arrowPress Releases
September 2, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


What's holding back Crysis 3? Exclusive
What's holding back  Crysis 3 ?
March 1, 2013 | By Christian Nutt

March 1, 2013 | By Christian Nutt
Comments
    52 comments
More: Console/PC, Business/Marketing, Exclusive



Crytek founder Cevat Yerli is frustrated. When Gamasutra asks him about the fact that Crysis 3 isn't making the same kind of splash as its predecessors, it's obvious that this is a raw topic for him. The original game sits at a 91 Metacritic, while the PC version of the sequel has an 86. As of this writing, Crysis 3 scores a 78 on PC.

This, despite the fact that Yerli tells Gamasutra that the game is "so far, our masterpiece."

"It is better than Crysis 2. It is better than Crysis 1. Technical and creatively, and storytelling -- all aspects," he says.

Even if that's true -- after all, it is, to a great extent, subjective -- the developer anticipated lower ratings this time around. After researching, Crytek found "about 20 games that we analyzed that got hammered, sequels or three-quels, where number two, number three, or number four got significantly lower ratings than the previous iterations."

He lays the blame on two major factors.

One is the current console generation creating "fatigue" in gamers. "Some games have lost up to 20 percent, despite the fact that the games are quite good still," Yerli says. "That's because there's a certain fatigue level with the old generation currently. The markets are down." In his words, "people's expectations are much more radical than the current generation of games are doing."

"I think the new generation of consoles will reinvigorate that and help to elevate that again, and elevate new concepts of gaming which old platforms are right now limiting, too."

He also places some blame on the fact that the original Crysis came to the market "free of any burden."

When it launched in 2007, only on PC, it was released against first-generation Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 games. Thanks to that, "it was so different to others that the relative impact it created was so much more bigger than Crysis 2 or Crysis 3," Yerli says.

And if there's one thing you just can't compete with, it's the subjectivity of human memory. "So, for me, the relative impact that Crysis 3 has created is lower than what Crysis 1 did. But I would think at any level it's better than Crysis 2, and it's certainly still better than Crysis 1. People remember Crysis 1 much bigger than it was, because it had a high impact," Yerli says.

He notes that Crysis 3 has triple the budget of the original game in the franchise -- a budget it can only get thanks to the fact that it's multiplatform. But that creates limitations.

"The consoles are eight year old devices. Of course, in one way or another, they will limit you. It's impossible not to be limited by a limited console. By definition it's the case. So if it were PC only, could we have done more things? Certainly, yes. Could we have afforded a budget to make a game like Crysis 3 PC only? No. People have to understand that this is a journey of give and take."


Related Jobs

Cloud Imperium Games
Cloud Imperium Games — Santa Monica, California, United States
[09.02.14]

Gameplay Programmer
Big Fish Games
Big Fish Games — Seattle, Washington, United States
[09.02.14]

Engineering Manager- Studios
Cloud Imperium Games
Cloud Imperium Games — Santa Monica, California, United States
[09.02.14]

3D Artist
DoubleDown Interactive
DoubleDown Interactive — Seattle, Washington, United States
[09.02.14]

Principal Game Designer










Comments


Trent Tait
profile image
I dislike all the urban environments. I loved Crysis 1 for the jungle settings. It was a lot more open and free than Crysis 2, and also didn't have those horrible console controls on the PC. I wont buy Crysis 3 if it's just more of Crysis 2 with console controls and to a lesser extent, while it's Origin only, and probably not at all. I've had enough of EA.

In my opinion, Crysis 2 was technically better than Crysis 1, but the feel of Crysis 1 was right.

Jacob Pederson
profile image
Huge fan of Crysis and Far Cry 1. I agree totally: taken as individual pieces, every part of Far Cry 3 is a huge improvement (except the fake stereoscopy). The grass physics alone are worth the purchase :) However, taken as a whole game . . . the feel just isn't there. The distinction of world vs corridor may not mean much to some players, but to me, the idea that I can just walk off into the woods and avoid a fight is game changing. Hence, I enjoyed Far Cry 3 100% more than Crysis 3.

patrik osgnach
profile image
There is no reason for giving the same experience on PCs and consoles. PC is technically better so it deserves a better version. Do this and the ratings will improve

Chris Clogg
profile image
I agree. I think consolization is probably a large reason for the ratings. It certainly turned me off of Crysis 2 (and because of that, as a consumer of PC games, I instantly wrote-off Crysis 3). But I'm guessing people that avoid console ports on PC, like me, are a minority?

Or maybe it's everything else that people are mentioning in the comments below ><

Edit: And I agree with your statement about "better" with regards to controls, UI, and complexity of elements, simply because of keyboard/mouse.

Dave Long
profile image
That doesn't explain the drop in ratings for particular platforms, though ;).

Chris Clogg
profile image
Good point, I should research more about it.

Jacob Pederson
profile image
Score drops/rises for particular platforms are due to the following: In some sense, a score is a comparison of the quality of a game vs quality of other games On That Platform. Hence, the "PS3 Effect," where a cross platform title will score better on the PS3 due to there not being as many good games for the PS3 :) I think we'll see similar score asymmetric on the Wii-U as cross platform stuff starts to come out for it.

The PC see's the worst of this effect because it has the largest game library.

Brandon Kidwell
profile image
It doesn't matter what system it is on. The game needs to be engaging. I believe the issue is that the game is a sequel in a day and age where sequels are saturating the market. In top of that it is an FPS in a more saturated market. It's a bad time for that kind of game.

Vincent Hyne
profile image
What is this rationalizing garbage?

Crysis 1 is leagues better than 2 or 3. And 3 is the worst.

It is in fact one of the worst games I have ever played. The narrative is beyond vapid, inane and attempting forced drama. The dialog is some of the worst written and executed in a video game. The gameplay is not only boring, but formulaic and repetitive ála "enter new area, kill or evade X amount of guards/aliens" and repeat that over and over with two linear driving sections and a turret carousel as extras. For a whopping six hours that it took to finish.

Also don't talk to me about nostalgia, I played Crysis 1 two months ago, and while it had its faults, compared to Crysis 3 it was a vastly superior experience.

It just goes to prove that no matter how much money you drop into a game, or which tech you use, if the initial idea (story, gameplay elements) is garbage, there's nothing to save you. The idea behind Crysis 3 was insanely constricted by the fact that it had to be published on consoles, thus the tech had to be downgraded significantly (affecting the scope), and it had all of the Call of Duty limitations, which morphed it into a piece of unrecognizable pus-infested garbage of the original Crysis 1 idea that the franchise started with.

Awful, awful game.

Matthew Mouras
profile image
For all the technical wizardry, they are missing the fun factor. Yes it's a beautiful game. Yes the suit adds some interesting mechanics to the shooting. Yes the story is detailed... but I'm still not having as much fun as I am with other shooters.

Some of the new mechanics in Crysis 3 bring the game down. The bow is completely overpowered. It's far too easy to fall into a pattern of

1. "Cloak Engaged"
2. Kill everyone you see with a silent arrow that doesn't break your cloak
3. Hide in a dark corner until your suit is at full power again
4. Shoot the remaining enemies that stupidly came to stare at their dead friends
5. Collect the arrows from the pile of death you created so that you can do it all over again
6. Move to the checkpoint - repeating steps 1 and 3 as necessary.

Playing through the game feels too much like I'm playing through Crysis 2 with a bigger advantage than I need. It feels less innovative to me than the most recent Call of Duty. THAT's why it isn't seeing high marks. Blaming it on fatigue with the console is disingenuous. The problem is the design, not the hardware.

David Navarro
profile image
If it has a bow, I'm sold.

Christian Nutt
profile image
Only if you buy the Hunter Pack™

Matthew Mouras
profile image
I think that only applies to multiplayer. Access to the bow is a key feature of the single player.

Zirani Jean-Sylvestre
profile image
Dunno about this one... My friends that have bought the game all said they loved it. So perhaps, sure it's a bit repetitive and reviewers are right to point the lack of originality, but if they made a game that ppl love, then the game is successful.

Ozzie Smith
profile image
If you pretend Crysis 2 was called something else, then you could call it one of the better linear-ish shooters made in the last 5 years. Although the biggest problem with the game is that the AI really isn't that good (especially the aliens). I just replayed the game for a few hours 2 weeks ago and you can just walk right up to the aliens and stare right at them and they will just stare back at you for a huge amount of time (and when they "turn on" they barely attack you or move in any coherent way anyway).

But when you compare it to Crysis 1 or warhead Crysis 2 just feels too simplified. I mean don't get me wrong, they did an amazing job streamlining a ton of control options from Crysis 1 and make you feel really mobile/agile (climbing up walls, peaking over cover, etc), but the level design just isn't nearly as good. Also by getting rid of super speed the game felt a lot slower (something I was really hoping Crysis 3 would add back in but it seems like it didn't) and less engaging.

I think the super armor mode just made the game a lot "dumber." Instead of having to use all of your powers constantly to not die and outmaneuver and confuse your enemies, you can just go cloak for a bit and kill the designated "stealth kill these guys" enemies (you always open a door and they are just standing there with their back to you) and then the gameplay turns into "pop out of cover with armor mode on and shoot guys for a bit, then go back into cover until energy recharges." Instead of being able to mix in speed and strength more (strength is pretty much limited to JUST some high jumps in C2 because things like kicking cars or the power drop are so underpowered), you only have 2 "active" abilities in the game now.

I was hoping C3 would add more powers to the game (or at least re-add super speed) and have larger environments (which I've read the game actually does for a few levels), and fix the broken AI. I'm interested in playing the game still even if the bow sounds way too overpowered (being able to shoot while cloaked seems to go against the core design philosophy of Crysis), although I can't since my PC only has a DX10 card I'll have to wait a while until I decide to get a DX11 card to play the game (even though I am able to play Far Cry 3 and Crysis 2 on my PC and have it run and look better than the console versions).

A W
profile image
I'm going to make a relative statement. Yesterday I just saw the Remake of Judge Dredd. In every way the movie is superior to the higher budget film that had the A star cast because the artist writers, director and producer spent the amount of money they had on the stuff that mattered most. It was better because it was done right, not because it had a ton of money to spend on eye candy, but because it was balanced.

The developer of Crysis does not want the user to focus on the stuff that matters, they want us to focus on the tech the game is built upon to make the input and surrounding lead-by-the-hand sandbox levels fell more believable.

The game is a PC game and yet the argument of the developer is ""fatigue" in gamers..."because of "old generation currently." So his point is that if they had more then it would have scored better because of the more. Not the fact that the righting was bad, they didn't push the right story structures, they could have made some elements gel more. No no its because they didn't have more tech because the gamer is getting tired of the PC level graphical fidelity we are able to push with our engine.

Don't they understand that they are just pushing concepts around that have been in gaming for generations now. The only achievement they made is visuals, and a every step of the way all they have done to market their game is to remind us of how little gamers are because the engine won't even run at full settings on the latest PC.

Jonathan Jennings
profile image
I never understood the argument for old tech-fatigue . I have definitely heard of good games being overlooked because they were released on old hardware when new hardware was available but I can't fathom playing a good game and feeling slighted because It is on an old device . It would be like me saying watching a video cassette of toy story was underwhelming due to the existence of DVD's or even blurays. Content is content across the board and i think unfulfilling content is not a technical issue but a development issue.

anyway spot-on comparison to the two judge dredds AW!

Kevin Reese
profile image
Totally concur.

I see Crysis 3 as a expansive advertisment for the amazing engine.

No matter how great your graphics are, it is the gameplay that is more important.

That's why I've sunk in more than 25 hours in the amazing FTL game (made by two folks) and have no interest at all at getting Crysis 3. I'm all standard FPS-design'ed out; I'm sure many gamers feel the same way.

It would be an incredible experiment for a gaming company to double or triple the budget for AI programming say, instead of focusing solely on graphics. Now that would be innovative and catch my interest.

Andreas Ahlborn
profile image
Crytek has my utmost respect how they handled the overall arc of their trilogy and I enjoyed every step of their incremental perfecting their formula.

When I look back on some other gaming trilogies of the last 5 years: Mass Effect, Assassins Creed, Dead Space, Gears of War, Modern Warfare, Battlefield they are definitively playing their cards well. Even if other companies catched up at the technical side in my opinion they defended their graphical throne. And besides Battlefield there is also no better sounddepartment than cryteks.

That might not mean much to the average gamer or the overanalyzing gamecritic that kind of adapts his expectations and is somewhat disappointed that not every other game can give him the gamegasm he so wildly feels entitled to, but after seeing that even the movie industry manages to constantly mess up their output with every soulless sequel they add to their Blockbuster-franchises (Transformers, Matrix, Alien/Prometheus, Resident Evil, Die Hard) I am far from taking Quality-time with any AAA-product for granted.

I am also holding my breath for Bioshock:Infinite, Watchdogs and Remember me. 3 new formulas that could either turn out very well or implode on arrival.

Bart Stewart
profile image
I have no problem criticizing the entitlement behavior when it pops up, but I don't think that's what's happening to Crysis 3.

Sequels make a promise: we the developers really do understand what you liked about the first game, and we're going to give you that again, only better. Gamer assessments of a sequel are largely a measure of whether they thought the game kept that promise.

A reasonable case can be made -- not just an infantile "Gimme!" reaction, or a charge of gamer "fatigue" -- that the second and third games in the Crysis series did not deliver what made the first one so much fun. Maybe it was a designer failure to understand what made the original Crysis distinctively enjoyable. Maybe Crytek did understand but (as Yerli suggests) couldn't do it because of the technical limitations imposed by their deliberate choice to limit the design to what consoles could handle.

Either possibility is interesting to the designer or critic, and worth discussing, but reasons are irrelevant to the gamer who can see by simply playing a sequel whether the first game's promise was kept or not. When the spark of greatness is missing, gamers feel the loss, and the sales numbers and critical scores reflect that feeling.

I don't think that deserves to be dismissed as simple entitlement complaints. There is a substantive and responsible criticism being offered regarding the Crysis series of games. That's a discussion developers should want to have if they care about figuring out how to make their games more fun for more people.

Rob Wright
profile image
Yerli has had a history of making puzzling public statements (piracy, PC specs, game demos, etc.) and this latest one, while not quite Rushmore worthy for him, is still high questionable. Whatever your thoughts are on the Crysis games (haven't played 3, really like 2/Warhead, was disappointed by 1) this whole notion of "fatigue" doesn't seem to hold much water. Ditto for his proposed "sequelitis" theory -- good god, man, the entire industry LIVES on sequels! Is he honestly arguing that a game developer will be more successful releasing a new IP "free of any burden" in a sequel-laden market than launching the next iteration in a popular franchise?

Duong Nguyen
profile image
Crytek technically proficient but always lacked good design sense ( in terms of gameplay, pacing, story and visual styling ) which would have elevated it to the status of such studios like R*, Bungie, Naughty Dog etc.. Some studios just have one or more major weakness in their process which for whatever reason are oblivious too. Maybe their corporate culture or maybe it's just the not their focus..

Kevin Reese
profile image
Amazing sizzle, but not much steak.

Josh Bakken
profile image
Because it's not Dust 514.

Dane MacMahon
profile image
I think fatigue is spot-on. Also publishers ignore a critical aspect this late in the generation: backlog. I have like 30 games from the last few years I own on Steam but haven't got around to yet. When Crysis 3 neither looks nor plays in any kind of new way, why jump immediately to it? There is no reason.

And with Yerli saying elsewhere today that the future is "online singleplayer" he certainly doesn't give me hope he will continue to serve my market, which is purely offline singleplayer escape-from-the-world gaming.

Kevin Reese
profile image
It is likely not selling that well because the game's design is relatively unimaginative. How many standard FPS games can you play before you get tired of the genre? 20.. ? 30...? 50...? The graphics are amazing and the game is a technical triumph but the gameplay is old and uninteresting. Personally I would be far more excited about a FPS game that has some sort of innovation in it, like Dishonored, or depth, like Far Cry 3, than this game. Maybe the high PC requirements are also a factor? Disclaimer: have not played the game to be honest, making judgments on what I've read about it.

Bob Johnson
profile image
Haven't played it yet. The first was fun but dragged after awhile.

The 2nd was fun too at first but honestly I just got bored fairly quickly. Most sp fps games do that to me now though.

I think Crysis on the pc was perhaps the last sp fps game I enjoyed.

Rolf Moren
profile image
The reason they got low reviews is very simple. They made it too easy to finish!

Jonathan Murphy
profile image
What can you get for $60? A lot of beer, a ton of $5 movies, a blu ray player, Ipod Shuffle, tons of comics, cards, you name it. That's why I keep telling people $60 is poison. We sell, -wants- not -needs-. When the price of -wants- is high, people become fickle with buying habits.

Thus 78/100 becomes a horrible mark. Slap sequel on it, and you are asking for trouble. People see $60 for a sequel as paying for more of the same. Most times they are right. But what do I know? Keep ignoring me and ponder some deeper hidden reason that seems to elude the market.

Andreas Ahlborn
profile image
Reading over these comments, which have an awful lot of "uninformed" opinions (disclaimer: I didn`t play the game) the explanation why C3 didn`t peform as high as expected in the critical circus could simply be that none of the rush-hour game critics actually played through the campaign.

Yerli is definitively not complaining about sales numbers or fan reaction, crysis 3 holds 3 of the top five global chart ranks.

Btw crysis 2 sold 3 million copies vs. Crysis`700K, so while it might have been a more innovative game at the time it launched it surely was not more successful.

Bob Johnson
profile image
Well the 1st was limited to the pc for a long time.

Andreas Ahlborn
profile image
@Zack:
You`re welcome.
http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=Crysis

Emmanuel Henne
profile image
I think it wouldnt have harmed to wait a few more years with C3, because this "fatigue" isnt a new thing, and the market is oversaturated with Crysis-type games, I fail to see the uniqueness. Even in a movie setting the game would be below B, simply because its not visiionary, thought provoquing or has a rare and great style of humour. Last of Us will have those jungleised cities, as well as Enslaved had them.

Adam Bishop
profile image
If gamers are fatigued and want something more radical then why is an old-school JRPG like Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch getting almost universally rave reviews? Why did I have trouble tracking down a copy when it first came out because it was selling so well (relative to expectations, at least)? I think there's plenty of room for experiences that don't break new ground technically as long as they're lovingly crafted and intelligently designed.

Dave Long
profile image
I think it highlights the broken nature of videogame reviewing - not enough standards, not enough people held to account, too many people who have a passing familiarity with gaming and little skill in forming an argument or making useful comparisons that are writing, combined with 'flamebait' reviews written for hits rather than to inform readers. It's been a good few years since videogame reviews were a fair indication of the actual product.

That's not to say that Yerli doesn't talk a lot of rubbish - he's got one of the biggest mouths in gaming, and sometimes puts Peter Molyneux to shame - but in this case he's highlighting something that's well worth thinking about.

Mike Griffin
profile image
I replayed Crysis 1 and Warhead (quite good) last year to see them running on a thundering PC, years later. Still immensely satisfying FPS campaigns, both of 'em, with great environments and tons of pointless-but-gorgeous explorable space off the critical mission path to explore.

Crytek treats the first-person perspective like gold. Fully rendered first-person body parts and animations that put "floating torso" FPS treatment (i.e., CoD) to shame. I give them full credit on that level. They make the perspective feel very good.

The transition to console for C2 and C3 (didn't play 3 yet, but over-the-shoulder watched for a few hours) resulted in experiences that are a tad more linear, with less player creativity encouraged -- despite some of the multi-solution, set-piece awesomeness and entertaining Nanosuit shenanigans.

I still think Crytek is a damn fine FPS studio, and we'll see greatness from them again in the future, whether it's this genre or another (perhaps the next-gen Kinect brawler for Microsoft).

John Flush
profile image
The reason I haven't bought much into the game series is because it is published by EA. No really, I wish it was deeper than that, but some publishers will get you negative results these days. EA is one of those for me. Every time I feel in the mood for a shooter I come back to this game at some point and realize I won't support it due to the publisher.

Gil Salvado
profile image
Some games don't necessarily need a high metascore to succeed. I guess, Crysis 3 will just make fine with profits. And if there is fatigue, which I certainly do not doubt there is, it's time to move on to something else.

id software did a remarkable job with Rage, and it's still a FPS after all. Changing the setting can seem so much, but that won't change gameplay a bit to not at all.

Andreas Ahlborn
profile image
In my book Rage is actually a good example how a great setting, new tech and fine design can be dragged down by technical issues. I bought it day 1 2 years ago and needed 3 days to get it running on my machine. But the texture tearing was still horrible. It felt like a last gen game that turned in a current gen game right in front of your eyes and then if you dared to move your camera, the process started all over again. 2 years later I upgraded my PC to a dx11 card, pimped the RAM and it still has not changed the fact that I´m getting 30 uply frames per second with the same screen tearing.

marty howe
profile image
I feel stupid for buying Crysis 3, strip away the visuals and its just arena battles against dumb AI. The story is so painful also.

Luis Guimaraes
profile image
So people dislike Crysis 3 out of fatigue and go replay the first one?

Matt Cratty
profile image
Streamlining and "consolizing" are never, EVER going to make better games. Period. You can blame the entire world for your results, but at the end of the day, you made a worse game, and you're not happy about it. And it sounds like you don't understand that.

You have to make games for the general audience now. I get that. But, you deliberately tried to capture the audience and lost track of what you did well in the first place.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

Craig Hauser
profile image
Personally, I haven't played 3 and have no plans of picking it up, but I bought 1 and 2 on launch, and given the drop in quality I perceived thematically and narratively, I'm not surprised. Crysis 1 was, in my eyes, fresh, decently written/voiced and with gameplay distinct from anything else I had played. The sequel stripped a lot of that distinctness away (Speed mode becoming a sprint button, strength mode becoming a lot less interesting, the change from fierce floating tripods with ice weaponry to boring ground troops with energy blasters) and while the story had one great idea (the suit _is_ Prophet, Alcatraz is slowly being assimilated) the rest was so forgettable and detracted from everything that came before that I just didn't care. It honestly felt like Crytek had phoned in the most important parts of the game.

Christian Philippe Guay
profile image
I think Crysis has a tremendous potential to be a big franchise. The technology behind the game is amazing, but the games just don't take advantage of what makes FPS games so great.

Armor:
As a player, I just don't feel like I'm that badass dude in his battlesuit. And personally, I don't think the suit looks badass either and maybe it's time to redesign it.

Armor abilities:
The two main armor abilities just aren't much satisfying to use or meaningful either. Both are just small variations of what already exists; life resistance and visibility, so really nothing special. However, I think it was a step in the right direction to add superjump, slide, ground stomp or to take someone as humanshield and throw him far away.

Aim down sight:
Crysis is a visually stunning franchise, but it's also a FPS game. The overrated aim down sight gameplay slows down the action, prevents the player from looking at those amazing graphics and just isn't as satisfying as shooting from the hip that allows the player to fully see the weapon in action, the powerful recoil, etc.

Multiplayer:
When players are supposed to play dudes in badass battlesuits, it ends up feeling like another Call of Duty game. Players die quickly (and still they have that badass armor that doesn't help them much, right?) and there are weapons such as the bow that can kill in one shot. At the top of that, there is a radar that makes things more casual and the 2 armor abilities that completely break up the game.

No surprise why a lot of experienced FPS players still prefer to play Quake or Counter-Strike over many recent FPS games. It seems like game developers lost their touch when it comes to create satisfying FPS gameplay experiences. Crysis 3 is just one case among many others.

Kujel Selsuru
profile image
I downloaded Crysis 1 for my Xbox quite a while ago but I never did finish it and thus never was interested in the next two. I don't hate the games but I find them more then a little over rated, not to mention I didn't really feel like a super soldier at all ( I mean just a couple of bullets takes you down :( ).

Amir Barak
profile image
"Some games have lost up to 20 percent, despite the fact that the games are quite good still," one might also argue that "quite good" is also "somewhat shite" which would account for lost interest and a lower score. There are also numerous, numerous examples of games made for lower specs and with worse tech that have done much better than Crysis 3; perhaps the term masterpiece is being brandished far too quickly nowadays, I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean something mediocre but still better than our first few attempts...

I can't see why we, as consumers, should care about the fact that Crysis 3 was made with triple the budget of Crysis 1. To me it speaks volumes of the design process. Mostly that it happened with expectations to ride the success of previous titles and basically revolved around a discussion of which technical features/mechanics should be added/removed in order to retain/attract buyers (a technical process compared to a creative one). Did Crysis 1 really need a sequel, did Crysis 2??

Vijay Srinivasan
profile image
The story line down the line got less interesting. Cry 1 had a fresh setting and felt good in every front. That installment had good surprise elements built in and was able to take the player on a journey through unimaginable settings. After it became a franchise, I guess Crytek faced challenges in terms of inventing interesting plot and settings which kinda in my opinion didnt work. I felt better immersion in the first version of the game. Little immersion in Cry 2 and almost no immersion in 3 so far in my play.

Vijay Srinivasan
profile image
The story line down the line got less interesting. Cry 1 had a fresh setting and felt good in every front. That installment had good surprise elements built in and was able to take the player on a journey through unimaginable settings. After it became a franchise, I guess Crytek faced challenges in terms of inventing interesting plot and settings which kinda in my opinion didnt work. I felt better immersion in the first version of the game. Little immersion in Cry 2 and almost no immersion in 3 so far in my play.

Brad Borne
profile image
"It is better than Crysis 1"

No, it's not.

And I enjoyed Crysis 3.

Marc Couture
profile image
For those who are wondering if the game will make money: it will when it comes to Steam. All my games are on Steam, I will not buy this game at retail and refuse to use Origin.

Ujn Hunter
profile image
Never played Crysis... if I ever do... should I play them backwards? Crysis 3, Crysis 2 then Crysis 1 for the ultimate adventure?


none
 
Comment: