casualcolors

Distinguished
Apr 18, 2011
2,043
0
19,960
Well, EA's Crysis 3 page is up with some descriptions of the game now. It can be found at http://crysis.ea.com/en_US

The general concept is apparently set around Cell creating bio-dome-esque structures in various places around the world, one of which being New York City. These bio-domes teem with life, setting the stage for a mixture of free roaming jungle and urban combat. That... is the concept.

Without bashing a game that has had zero developmental exposure yet, I do want to say that injecting these nano-dome things into the story to basically provide the jungle combat that people want is a direct response to the fan base. Unfortunately, to me it seems kind of stupid. Not in some canonically offensive way, but just in a boring "by the power of deus ex machina" kind of way.

As a lot of people here will already know, I'm a fan of not only Crysis and Warhead, but also Crysis 2. I thought all 3 were good in different ways; the first 2 primarily for their technical prowess given their age, while the latter for its vastly improved gameplay and attempt at a semblance of a coherent storyline. Unfortunately I feel like Crysis 3 may end up being one of those scenarios where an attempt at fan-service comes out far clunkier than what the developer is normally capable of producing without pressure from an entitled public.

Obviously, all of this remains to be seen but it was my first impression upon reading the site's content. I really hope to be proven wrong, and I'd like to know what first impressions the rest of you get from the content that is available now, with the mutual understanding that this is all conjecture and thus is no reason to start a namecalling, title-bashing, Crysis 1 vs Crysis 2 debating sort of thread. We have a ton of those already and they are all fun =).
 
I'm excited. I know the jungle-in-the-city is completely fan service, but I don't mind the means if the end turns out well. Hoping for day-1 DX11 support, a linear but much wider game, and more interactivity with the environment (like the first two).
 

CrysisComa

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2010
529
0
19,010
from the recent gameplay video

http://www.youtube.com/user/Crysis?v=g5NNkyDt65w

I can finally say i am not excited for the game. Still has a while to go. But i was never fond of the graphics change from 1 to 2.

Cryengine 3 looks....cartoony...

Right now they seem to be emphasizing a crossbow as the new weapon. But honestly i didnt really like the weapons change from 1 to 2 either.

TBH i dont think we will see much of a graphics difference between 2 and 3. At least as far as the gameplay video showed. Ill try to contain myself till we actually see the game...

 

casualcolors

Distinguished
Apr 18, 2011
2,043
0
19,960


Not sure if you're referring to the environment or the characters. The environment I would say is subjective since Crysis didn't exactly look realistic (to me BF3 looks far more so especially when considering the variety of environments they've tried to render into 1 title, even more so since I've been to similar settings that they tried to portray in that game) but I could see where the bloom and stuff in Crysis 2 would make the environment seem a little surreal.

As far as the character design goes though, the enemies in the first Crysis and Warhead were cartoony themselves. It is actually one of the things that masks the age of the game decently well. I think the only poor rendered character from Crysis 2 was Dr. Gould. I wouldn't say he was indicative of the other characters rendered on the engine though. He was just an example of exceptionally poor art conception. Everyone else looked far better.
 

Totally agree with you on all points. Frostbite 2 and Cryengine 3 are the bleeding edge. Both games get things very right with the environments. Though there's something off about BF3, too. Must be that uncanny valley but with environments. And the first time I saw Nathan Gould I was like, this dude looks like a Shih Tzu/Yosemite Sam with glasses.
 

CrysisComa

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2010
529
0
19,010
so im assuming the game will use the same engine as Crysis 2?

I was trying to figure out what exactly it is i dont like about 2 as much as 1. And i realize alot of it is the amount of destruction that 1 had, which as lacking in 2.

Any idea if they may revert back to having more destruction?
 

Yes, it'll be Cryengine 3 again. Looks like the same models and everything too. It's being built with DX11 from the start, though, which is encouraging.

I know how you feel. I could cut down a tree with a pistol in Crysis and Warhead, but even if I shoot a JAW at a sapling in Crysis 2, it leaves nothing but a cute little decal. Mocking me.

I sure hope so - btw you should check out this great thread we have going on that very topic.
 

namelessonez

Distinguished
Jun 30, 2009
1,157
0
19,460

If that be true, what happens to the console version? As of now, I don't think any console utilizes DX11. Building a game based on DX11 from the beginning doesn't seem right in this regard.

Being an avid PC Gamer, I would love nothing better than what you've said, but looking at how consoles are given priority, I'd be hard pressed to agree with you.
 

casualcolors

Distinguished
Apr 18, 2011
2,043
0
19,960


What do you mean what happens to the console version? BF3 was developed for PC primarily and natively utilizes DX11.
 

namelessonez

Distinguished
Jun 30, 2009
1,157
0
19,460

BF3 is perhaps one of the biggest exceptions to the rule where the PC was (fortunately) given due consideration. I was referring to Crysis 2 only, which was initially (and essentially) built for consoles , with subsequent tweaks for the PC. The original Crysis on the other hand was PC oriented, so Crysis 2 in that much was a departure from tradition.

Imo, when you develop a game first for the console, you've pretty much put everything in it already and subsequent add-ons/ patches don't do justice in comparison to what might have been the outcome had due preference been given keeping the PC as a platform in mind.
 

+1

BF3 is the prime example - the game really shines on PCs, and the console version is better for it. I suspect Crytek has learned their lesson.

@namelessonez, I feel you with the post-production DX11/HD Textures spit-shine in Crysis 2. SO slapped-together. "Okay, we've released Crysis 2! Now you've got 4 months to make this console port look like a PC title!" I mean, at least it was free, but it's taken MaLDo over a year now to complete Crytek's Crysis 2 PC department's job... And even with that amazing mod, the physics/interactivity don't even begin to measure up to Crysis.
 

casualcolors

Distinguished
Apr 18, 2011
2,043
0
19,960


My point was that if Crysis 3 is developed for PC-primary (which I don't believe it fully will be, but suspending my disbelief) there's no reason a DX9 counterpart can't be created alongside it a la BF3.
 

namelessonez

Distinguished
Jun 30, 2009
1,157
0
19,460

Notwithstanding the big "IF" involved, I endorse your views completely.
 

robthatguyx

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2011
1,155
0
19,310
i was excited to here about crysis 3 being announced but im not counting on it being the best the idea of urban jungle combat just doesn't seem to interesting to me. the plot just doesn't seem compelling,im hoping it wont be another let down like crysis 2 was compared to 1
 

CrestfallenDesign

Honorable
May 2, 2012
287
0
10,790
I enjoyed playing crysis 2 on ps3? Compare it to most other Fps on console and it blows them out of the water. however what was said earlier about terrain destruction it completely true, it hasn't come far from crysis 1, if anything downgraded. Still without having to compare the two back to back id say they were both blistering games!
 

addzy94

Distinguished
May 27, 2011
107
0
18,690


I don't know if Crysis 3 is going to win or lose but I just loved that above line of yours. We don't see them as much a we did in the old days.
 

addzy94

Distinguished
May 27, 2011
107
0
18,690


I too felt Terrain destruction was virtually 0 in Crysis 2.

Trees didn't fall when Alcatraz shot them with bullets (even JAW).
 

robthatguyx

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2011
1,155
0
19,310
i agree there both good games, just i don't think crysis 2 even compared to 1..i feel that was partly the fact they had it designed for consoles and pc as oppose to when crysis 1 first came out it was just pc. crysis 1 on 360 was very very glitchy and almost pixelated. crysis 2 on console was also very glitchy i feel that consoles are holding back the true potential of games
 

Really? I haven't played it myself, but I keep telling my brothers and friends to download it and experience the game. I figured a lot had to be given up to fit it on consoles, but that's sad that it's pixelated... The YouTube videos I've watched look great, especially with Cryengine 3 lighting and the Crysis 2 suit-functions.
 

More muddy than pixelly - suggests low-res textures and a low display resolution - 720p I bet, if that. There is some object and shadow pop-in too. But the lighting IMO is superior. In a lot of those shots, the X360 lighting is incredibly realistic.
 
New trailer - I like it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F3_JMYNB6A&feature=player_embedded#!

Of course I've also grown quite fond of Crysis 2 (with MaLDoHD mod) in recent months.

I don't really like that alien grenade launcher that takes up literally half the screen...
 

TRENDING THREADS