Crysis 3 Review - Nothing Underneath the Suit
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Man, it's sad that such a "landmark" IP (esp for PC) failed to elicit any emotional response. I remember playing the original, being somewhat interested, but ultimately not caring. The sequel didn't do it for me either, and by the time the 3rd came out, I couldn't be bothered to give a hoot.
Honestly, a game that phones it in to mediocrity shouldn't expect $60.
Well, thanks for the candor, I don't feel as bad for "missing out" for the past year or so.
Honestly, a game that phones it in to mediocrity shouldn't expect $60.
Well, thanks for the candor, I don't feel as bad for "missing out" for the past year or so.
I think there would be more to care about if 3 had continued on from 2 (and 2 had continued on from 1).
Each new game seems to start the plot over from zero. In 2 all the characters (and the show stopping locations) from 1 were ignored, even the visual design seemingly being reset and the cliff hanger ending of 1 apparently resolved while you weren't looking.
3's much the same, what happened immediately after the end of 2 is never explained beyond that at some point Prophet went to Siberia, it's just 'here's more bad guys, they're the same as the last ones but not,' It's just some indeterminate point in the future, a whole bunch of new people (and a new enemy, motivations and end game, none of which I remember being in Crysis 2) that you're expected to care about with no introduction.
Which is fine, but I spent the whole game wondering what happened to the island, Nomad and Eagle team. It really hurts Crysis 3 that there's no levels like Onslaught or Core in number 3, nothing really brings down the house the way lining up in an armoured column or suddenly being weightless did five years ago.
Speaking of which, if Crytek would like to do a reboot, starting from that cliff hanger ending five years ago, I'd buy that.
Each new game seems to start the plot over from zero. In 2 all the characters (and the show stopping locations) from 1 were ignored, even the visual design seemingly being reset and the cliff hanger ending of 1 apparently resolved while you weren't looking.
3's much the same, what happened immediately after the end of 2 is never explained beyond that at some point Prophet went to Siberia, it's just 'here's more bad guys, they're the same as the last ones but not,' It's just some indeterminate point in the future, a whole bunch of new people (and a new enemy, motivations and end game, none of which I remember being in Crysis 2) that you're expected to care about with no introduction.
Which is fine, but I spent the whole game wondering what happened to the island, Nomad and Eagle team. It really hurts Crysis 3 that there's no levels like Onslaught or Core in number 3, nothing really brings down the house the way lining up in an armoured column or suddenly being weightless did five years ago.
Speaking of which, if Crytek would like to do a reboot, starting from that cliff hanger ending five years ago, I'd buy that.
Mr Tito what are the specs of the PC you used to run the game on? It ran very smooth and looked very good in the video review.
As for the review itself, reminds me of Crysis 2, especially the HUD. There was a point in the video when the damn broke that I found myself saying "shiiiiiit" which is generally a good thing for any game. How was the multiplayer? You never really mentioned it.
As for the review itself, reminds me of Crysis 2, especially the HUD. There was a point in the video when the damn broke that I found myself saying "shiiiiiit" which is generally a good thing for any game. How was the multiplayer? You never really mentioned it.
So basically it is Crysis 2.... hell, it even looks, plays and feels exactly like crysis 2. About as much gameplay change as between CoD iterations. Typical EA to be honest...
seriously, did they change anything from crysis 2 other than the addition of the bow and a few new levels?
Hell, did they learn nothing from Crysis 2? In that their was no emotional involvement in the plot, mainly because we spent no time with the characters and it all felt so... run of the mill. Nothing out of the ordinary at all, it just felt so..... been there, done that territory. I wish Crytek had made crysis 2 and 3 part 1 and 2 of the same story, set with the same characters that we could come to actually have emotional involvement in, rather than just skip time and reset emotional involvement to zilch.
An utter shame...
seriously, did they change anything from crysis 2 other than the addition of the bow and a few new levels?
Hell, did they learn nothing from Crysis 2? In that their was no emotional involvement in the plot, mainly because we spent no time with the characters and it all felt so... run of the mill. Nothing out of the ordinary at all, it just felt so..... been there, done that territory. I wish Crytek had made crysis 2 and 3 part 1 and 2 of the same story, set with the same characters that we could come to actually have emotional involvement in, rather than just skip time and reset emotional involvement to zilch.
An utter shame...
You made it pretty obvious that you weren't playing the game on any of the higher difficulties. Try them out and you'll change your mind about some of the aspects of the game that you criticized. Crysis 3 isn't a game that one should play on any of the first 3 difficulties. Even though some people report that Veteran difficulty is hard.
I have to agree that the missions aren't memorable at all. I remember every mission from Crysis 1 and Warhead. Those were great games. Even the plot was interesting for a shooter. I remember nothing about Crysis 2 and nothing from Crysis 3 apart from the ending and a few Prophet/Psycho moments that are worth mentioning. I did like the overall theme of the game. What makes us human is always an interesting question. And it's such a stark contrast from previous games where the emphasis was on the suits. This one is about reminding nanosuit wearers that what's inside the suit is more important. I liked that. And unlike most AAA titles of this generation (although Crysis 3 is definitely a next-gen game on PC) the ending is satisfying and it provides a definite closure.
But, the game still can't hold a handle to the original Crysis. I don't know why they decided to dumb down the nanosuit. It's not like the consoles can't handle it. Separate nanosuit powers worked a lot better in Crysis 1. It made the game a lot more strategic on higher difficulties and a lot more fun on lower ones. How you planned your approach actually mattered.
I also have a huge problem with how Crytek handled the plot of these games. Crysis 2 should have been a direct continuation of Crysis 1, with Nomad or Psycho as the protagonist. If they wanted to kill off Nomad in the end, fine. But do it in the game, not in the comic books.
I agree with those who think that Crytek should reboot Crysis 2 and 3. That cliffhanger was so promising.
Oh, well. Crytek did say that there will be Crysis 4. Hopefully, one of the next games will fill in those gaps.
Why can't we have a decent trilogy anymore?
Oh and, the music in the game is pretty sweet.
I have to agree that the missions aren't memorable at all. I remember every mission from Crysis 1 and Warhead. Those were great games. Even the plot was interesting for a shooter. I remember nothing about Crysis 2 and nothing from Crysis 3 apart from the ending and a few Prophet/Psycho moments that are worth mentioning. I did like the overall theme of the game. What makes us human is always an interesting question. And it's such a stark contrast from previous games where the emphasis was on the suits. This one is about reminding nanosuit wearers that what's inside the suit is more important. I liked that. And unlike most AAA titles of this generation (although Crysis 3 is definitely a next-gen game on PC) the ending is satisfying and it provides a definite closure.
But, the game still can't hold a handle to the original Crysis. I don't know why they decided to dumb down the nanosuit. It's not like the consoles can't handle it. Separate nanosuit powers worked a lot better in Crysis 1. It made the game a lot more strategic on higher difficulties and a lot more fun on lower ones. How you planned your approach actually mattered.
I also have a huge problem with how Crytek handled the plot of these games. Crysis 2 should have been a direct continuation of Crysis 1, with Nomad or Psycho as the protagonist. If they wanted to kill off Nomad in the end, fine. But do it in the game, not in the comic books.
I agree with those who think that Crytek should reboot Crysis 2 and 3. That cliffhanger was so promising.
Oh, well. Crytek did say that there will be Crysis 4. Hopefully, one of the next games will fill in those gaps.
Why can't we have a decent trilogy anymore?
Oh and, the music in the game is pretty sweet.
Not really. EA doesn't own Crytek or any of their IP's. I think Crytek and EA just have an agreement that benefits both parties, but EA doesn't call the shots on this one apart from deciding on which platforms the game will be released. And that is probably not entirely in their hands either given the nature of Crytek's independence. Crytek alone is to blame for the state of the series.vrbtny said:
I can answer that!Xan Krieger said:
Death match, King of the Hill, Territory Control and a levelling system. You've played it before. It's ok, but I've played about 3 hours of it total before going back to Battlefield 3 and Counter Strike.
There is one asymmetric mode, where two people get suits and the rest are mooks. That could be interesting but it's basically impossible for the mook team to win, the Suiters are permanently cloaked and get bows to play with, so you get constantly nailed from hundreds of feet away by invisible enemies. If the suits had to mix and match powers like they do in campaign it would work a lot better, but it's really, really frustrating.
I predict it'll die a rapid death like Crysis 2's multiplayer did.
Sums up the entire Crysis series. I've tried each instalment but found absolutely nothing underneath the shiny graphics to make me want to play for longer than an hour or so. I can only think the reason for Crysis' popularity is that the shininess has distracted us so much that a good game isn't necessary.
DAMN IT. That was the only reason I wanted to buy it. Bleh, I'll wait for a sale then.fix-the-spade said:
Welp, there goes the last of my interest in this game.
I wonder if in a few years time Crytec will come out with another Crysis game continuing the story of the first one (and warhead) and pretending that two and three never existed? Cause... ..I'd consider buying that.
I wonder if in a few years time Crytec will come out with another Crysis game continuing the story of the first one (and warhead) and pretending that two and three never existed? Cause... ..I'd consider buying that.
Played it, liked it. There have been dozens of games with better writing, but hundreds with worse, and even though the initial narrative disconnect between instalments is jarring, the games do fill in the gaps over time. Also, I liked that this game actually gives you closure, something many game series nowadays neglect; it finishes the story and its respective character arc, and it makes you feel like you accomplished something (or at least it did for me).
That said, yeah, the game is basically Crysis 2.5 in terms of how it looks and plays... not that I'm complaining here, mind you. Probably not a high point in gaming for 2013, all things considered, but sure as hell pretty, and definitely a fun ride.
That said, yeah, the game is basically Crysis 2.5 in terms of how it looks and plays... not that I'm complaining here, mind you. Probably not a high point in gaming for 2013, all things considered, but sure as hell pretty, and definitely a fun ride.
I'd have to agree with the review. Having never played either of the previous instalments but after hearing my mates go on and on about them for years I was looking forward to Crysis 3 but....Meh.
It is defiantly one of the prettiest games I have ever played on the 360 but I'm about an hour and a half into the game on Veteran difficulty and...meh.
I just couldn't give a shite to be honest.
I'll keep it for time-killing purposes till tomb raider comes out and trade it in for that I reckon.
It is defiantly one of the prettiest games I have ever played on the 360 but I'm about an hour and a half into the game on Veteran difficulty and...meh.
I just couldn't give a shite to be honest.
I'll keep it for time-killing purposes till tomb raider comes out and trade it in for that I reckon.
It's hardly surprising, even if the writing were any good they've still semi-retconned the series at the beginning of each game.Seracen said:
OT: Bleh, Crysis was a great game in need of a pacing fix, and unfairly dismissed as a tech demo. 2 was compromised crap and the third holds no interest for me whatsoever.
What a shame.
Random question: what difficulty were you playing on when you reviewed Crysis 3?Greg Tito said:
I've heard the lower difficulties were quite the snooze-fest, but did allow the freedom to "play your way", while the upper levels pretty much required Stealth Mode all the time just to survive the horribly unfair AI and its ability to spot you from across the map and wreck you in one or two hits. This is further complicated by the game "dynamically" (randomly, it seems) changing the difficulty level down without notification (unless you're paying very close attention and have memorized the specific features of each). Did you experience that as well?
LOL!lacktheknack said:
It's a benchmark alright. Just like the original Crysis. And it will be for some time. Just like the original Crysis. Too bad it's not as fun as Crysis. Hopefully, modders will do something about that.