Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by Stone Gargoyle, Feb 20, 2012.
Are Crytek moving ahead with a third outing?
Maybe 3 times a charm since the first two sucked so badly?
The second was at times underwhelming but the first I adored. It far from sucked for me.
We know crysis is a trilogy, so why not.
Loved Crysis 2. Loved Warhead. Hated Crysis 1.
Did i miss something here, Crysis 1 is one of my all time favorite game, gives you soo much freedom which Crysis 2 could not provide .... and an overall much better game than Crysis 2 !
Hopefully Crysis 3 (if it was to be release) gives you the sandbox style gameplay which Crysis 1 provided and not the crappy linear gameplay from Crysis 2
God help us. Please CryTek, end the suffering!
Sure Crysis 1 was open ended, but it was nothing more than a glorified interactive tech-demo. The gameplay was down right boring. Had the game not sported the visuals it had at the time, it would have never gotten half the fame it did. The graphics made the game. The gameplay was poor at best. No innovation, here's a pretty jungle,, shoot guys and aliens. Quite the original idea lol.
Warhead was just more of the same crap for me.
And while much linear, I felt Crysis 2 had some decent moments, overall not a very good game, but they did try harder and it was better than part 1, but by no means was part 2 a "good game".
I just don't see where they go with number 3, the sequel didn't sell very well, and this time around they didn't have the piracy on pc scapegoat to run to instead of admitting they made a bad game that was nice to look at like they did with the original.
I dunno. Crytek reminds me of early ID software, great engines, no gameplay. Kind of like a blond with huge knockers and no brains.
I dont know how you guys hate crysis 1, maybe your cards were incapable of handling the graphics or whatever but i still love love crysis 1 and warhead, didn't have the time to play crysis 2 as i got busy with my personel life but hell ya im gonna definately play crysis 2 sooner and 3 later when it is released.
[Do not take my comments as personel as even some of my friends hated crysis 1 but i never did].
I will never understand this particular stance on Crysis as long as I live. Crysis was so much more besides being just a technology fest.
It's easy to figure out. People hated it because it made their just-purchased, brand spanking new several hundred dollar hardware seem like it didn't make a single difference because they couldn't max it out from the get-go and get a steady 60+ fps framerate.... which was the norm for a few years prior to it... and has been the norm pretty much ever since.
Seriously? I LOVE how people assume a judgement...any negativ e judgement on a PC game is because the user couldn't run it. lol.
The game sucked, that is all. I was fine with my 8800GTX at the time using hp's config with all high @ 1280x960 - it looked beautiful and ran fine. Here's the kicker kids, IT.WASN'T.ANY.FUN.
I'm sorry you have to revert to the age old "must of had shi*t hardware muwahaha, that's why he doesnt like it" look to the left, see my specs now? Guess what, I could max out Crysis today and still think it sucks.
People have this same argument with Battlefield 3 but for some reason it's forgivable.
Look, Crysis was basically the last PC-Exclusive that mattered. It was a great graphical effort and it put Crytek on the map as a developer. At the end of the day though, the game was as boring as watching a dead moth on a floor for 3 hours.
It was gimmicky and cliched. I'm sorry you can't accept Ifind the game crap for the game play and not for what my hardware is, was or will be in 5 years lol.
I couldn't max out Metro 2033 - hell still can't, I enjoy the game though. I couldn't max out the stalker games when they were new, I still enjoyed them. I have no problem lowering detail for the sake of game play. I want fun.
2) crysis warhead
3) crysis 2
4) possible crysis 3?
Actually the first Far Cry put CryTek on the map. If not for Ubisoft, we may not have even known who CryTek is today.
I cant even believe Crysis is being compared to Metro 2033. That game is just horrible. Its so linear its like playing something like Doom or DN. There is no exploring to be done on any level. Which takes away from any game when you have to stick to a very small path. Crysis was not "open-ended" by any means. It was the same as Far Cry in the sense that there was just a large game area to explore but you COULD NOT explore the entire island at once.
Stalker on the other hand, great game.
Crysis was more of a demonstration of CryEngine 2 than anything else, but that in no way made it a bad game. I thought the gameplay was great. The story was good. Crysis 2 on the other hand, completely pointless.
First Crysis bored me to hell gameplay wise but had excellent graphics.
2nd was better gameplay wise but graphics while very good, still wasn't as good as the first one.
i reckon a 3rd Crysis will either be the best of both worlds.. or a complete disaster.
personally i think Crysis 3 will be another Daikatana, a disaster destined to be remembered for generations.
Crysis 1 has no amazing story. It's like the Avatar movie where people thought it had the best story ever! Just to realize that the graphics were what had them drowned, not the story. It's taking longer for first Crysis players to snap out of this "best story ever" thoughts and get real. That's what I think
dude crysis warhead dont count lol. it was more like a dlc than anything else. :nerd:
Sorry to spoil everyone's want for Crysis 3 but I distinctly remember hearing that Crytek were on board to develop the next Homefront game. I may be wrong but I am sure they were. Or maybe it was THQ buying the license to use cryengine3 for the next game. But I do remember the team behind the first and underwhelming Homefront 1 being sacked. I will try and find the article where I read it.
Quick Google search brought up the article
how awesome would it have been to see metro last light done with cryengine3?
Actually, i said that because if you remember correctly, when Crysis was first released, it got SOOOOOOOO much flak from every gamer and review site simply for that fact. "The graphics are fantastic, but it's currently unplayable at the highest settings". Then there were the people questioning why Crysis ran so much like sh*t, but games like UT3 looked completely awesome, and ran just fine.... forgetting entirely that Crysis was one massive interactive island rather than a tiny little battlefield with absolutely no destruction or fantastic water rendering or anything really that demanding, period.
And yea... i guess since i didn't reference ANYBODY in particular, it must have really struck a nerve with you or something. Never knew that not mentioning anybody meant i was referring to EVERYBODY.
Separate names with a comma.