I got Crysis 3!

[Syphon_Filter]

Just got it and I will play it at later time. You can ask questions if you want and I will answer later. Hope its ok to do that here lol.

[Wrath]

It sucks.

[Syphon_Filter]

It sucks.

And how did you know that it sucks? Explain why? point out your evidence of the game and its weakness.

[podsaurus]

It sucks.

Annnd that sums it all up lol. Crysis 2 was also nice to look at too but flat in every other aspect.

[Syphon_Filter]

Annnd that sums it all up lol. Crysis 2 was also nice to look at too but flat in every other aspect.

And how about Crysis 3? Do you think it will flat too mister genius?

[LfCpS3]

My MAIN AND VERY IMPORTANT question, how open are the levels/the map?


Have you played crysis 1 and 2 and if so which one does to feel more like? Probably better to ask once you are more into the middle, for still :P

Is it improved graphically from the beta?

[KungMartin90]

And how about Crysis 3? Do you think it will flat too mister genius?

They're just being mean. Try it out yourself first and judge based on your own experience =)

[podsaurus]

And how about Crysis 3? Do you think it will flat too mister genius?

Chill out. The first part was a joke I haven't played 3. 2 just was not very enjoyable to play. It was very 'blah' to me. No other way to explain it.

[Syphon_Filter]

My MAIN AND VERY IMPORTANT question, how open are the levels/the map?


Have you played crysis 1 and 2 and if so which one does to feel more like? Probably better to ask once you are more into the middle, for still :P

Is it improved graphically from the beta?

I haven't played Crysis 1 or 2. This is my first time that Iam playing a Crysis game. The game has good graphics, big maps to explore or to look for collectables, haven't tried the online yet, the weapons systems are weak, to use the crossbow is terrible, no point dot to aim, sound of the fire shoots are weak also, and doesn't feel its has been designed into modern world at all. Overall, the game isn't bad and in my personal opinion. Its good game and I would give it 8 from 10.

@podsaurus
Chill out. The first part was a joke I haven't played 3. 2 just was not very enjoyable to play. It was very 'blah' to me. No other way to explain it.
Loool man.

@KungMartin90
They're just being mean. Try it out yourself first and judge based on your own experience =)

I know friend thanks lol.

[ttech10]

Annnd that sums it all up lol. Crysis 2 was also nice to look at too but flat in every other aspect.

I remember with Crysis 2 I got a hold of that test build and any interest I had in the actual game ended. It had nothing I enjoyed from the first Crysis. I haven't seen much of the third, but of what I have it looks to be more of what the second one was.

[Wrath]

The main reason why I dislike the franchise is because of the developer's utterly annoying cockiness. They think their games are better than anything out there when in reality they might be pretty to look at but that's about it.

Mr. Genius.

[DarkVincent07]

Guys this isn't a bad thread but if any animosity continues from this point forth action will be taken


Via Tapatalk

[Syphon_Filter]

Guys this isn't a bad thread but if any animosity continues from this point forth action will be taken


Via Tapatalk

This happens all the time lol.

[DarkVincent07]

This happens all the time lol.

I know, but seems extra strong in here ><


Via Tapatalk

[podsaurus]

@Syphon
It's fine man if you like the game then that's good. I hope you continue to enjoy it. Personally I have no interest and what 2 was like is the reason why. I didn't find the story terribly interesting and game play wasn't fun for me. It wasn't as open a world as I thought. I'm not interested in 3 and that's why.

[Flaw3d Genius]

I haven't played Crysis 1 or 2. This is my first time that Iam playing a Crysis game. The game has good graphics, big maps to explore or to look for collectables, haven't tried the online yet, the weapons systems are weak, to use the crossbow is terrible, no point dot to aim, sound of the fire shoots are weak also, and doesn't feel its has been designed into modern world at all. Overall, the game isn't bad and in my personal opinion. Its good game and I would give it 8 from 10.

@podsaurus
Chill out. The first part was a joke I haven't played 3. 2 just was not very enjoyable to play. It was very 'blah' to me. No other way to explain it.
Loool man.

@KungMartin90
They're just being mean. Try it out yourself first and judge based on your own experience =)

I know friend thanks lol.

Isnt the sound of gun shots weak due to it being played out in the future?

[Fon]

I agree with the rest, Crysis 2 was so-so in the fun department. I'm curious to hear your opinion on the game(well more of it since your description is pretty vague).

[LfCpS3]

I was disappointed with the bow in the beta, especially after using the beast that was in Far cry 3, too bad they tried to make it crosshair style instead.

Rest sounds good ( crysis enemies are basically bullet sponges, so that is to be expected with weak weapons :P)

[coolguy]

Just have fun with the game. i do know Crysis 2 was not good

[Syphon_Filter]

Isnt the sound of gun shots weak due to it being played out in the future?

Nah, I have tried different weapons and they all sounded the same. I don't no which program the developers have used but its very bad campare to the technology.

@coolguy Just have fun with the game. i do know Crysis 2 was not good.
Iam thank you.

@LfCpS3

I was disappointed with the bow in the beta, especially after using the beast that was in Far cry 3, too bad they tried to make it crosshair style instead.

Rest sounds good ( crysis enemies are basically bullet sponges, so that is to be expected with weak weapons :P)
I agree. The bow is so bad and you can't aim nor see were its heading towards your target.

@podsaurus

@Syphon
It's fine man if you like the game then that's good. I hope you continue to enjoy it. Personally I have no interest and what 2 was like is the reason why. I didn't find the story terribly interesting and game play wasn't fun for me. It wasn't as open a world as I thought. I'm not interested in 3 and that's why.
So far I like it and as I said. I would give it 8 from 10 and its not bad game.

@DarkVincent07 I know, but seems extra strong in here
That is human nature friend and I can't for PS4 lool.

[MBS D@v!d]

I won't even read the thread because I know that I would get upset about some truely ignorant posts.

Crysis 2 was absolutely not bad. In fact, I thought it was one of the most exciting shooters on the market. I even downloaded Crysis 1 from PSN just to play it. Yes I know, it's not a great experience on console (Crysis 1), but it's good enough to keep me playing. The story and gameplay hasn't changed, it's just the graphical fidelity that's soooo much worse on the console.

But Crysis 2 was fine. I still think it looks very good - if you look at it from a console point of view. And I don't care if it's sub-HD or whatever, it runs well enough so that I thought it looks good, even great in some places, and the gameplay was so much fun. The nanosuit changes a lot.

I don't know... but I guess people just like to hate on things. If hating on somthing gets popular, then people hate on it. Or they don't approach a game objectively and just WANT to see negative aspects - even when there are none (I'm not saying Crysis 2 doesn't have flaws!).

Look at your standard shooter. Nothing special about them. Aim, shoot, run, crouch, aim, shoot, run, crouch. Shoot at standard enemies. Never will you encounter a triangle-kind of situation. In Crysis 2 for example, you have Alcatraz in the Nanosuit (you), the Ceph (the aliens) and Cell (the human soldiers from the Cell corporation). The firefights can get pretty entertaining when you're thrown into a firefight with a mixed bag of enemies. I thought that was cool.
The weapons feel and sound cool and realistic (realistic in terms of games, of course you can't make a shooting simulator - it wouldn't be fun in a game like Crysis or any other shooter lol), the customization is quick, intuitive and cool and you can change your loadout to fit the situation you're in.

The levels in Crysis 2 were structured more linear than in Crysis 1, but to be honest, Crysis 1 just had one enemy "camp" or something like that and you just ran until you where there, then you'd fight them. There WERE some fights in the woods that had the feel of "open-world" but it wasn't open world at all. And to be honest, the pacing wasn't good at all in those moments. It felt weird. I don't know. Crysis 2 had some pretty big levels too. But people tended to just blast through them and just ran to the objective marker. But you actually could approach your objective marker in a variety of routes, and each route could (or sometimes had to be) dealt with different methods. Sometimes you could sneak past enemies without firing a single shot, or you could confuse them by shooting one enemy, then going in cloak - they will come and look for you - then you'd just sneak around them. Or you went another route. In one of the earlier levels in the game, I realized that I could just climb some structure and go through a small door and that way I didn't have to fight 20+ enemies and could fight the guys at the objective marker stealthy... picking them off one by one.


Crysis 3 will be cool, I'm sure. In my opinion, the Crysis franchise (all three of them) are unique because of the Nanosuit, because of the story and the enemies, and the general style of the game (level structure and everything). Far Cry 3 is special too and freaking awesome, but it's another kind of FPS. But why I throw both Crysis and Far Cry 3 in the same bag is because they are something else. They are different from your standard military first person shooter like COD, Battlefield, or Medal Of Honor. They can be very cool and fun too, but the market is so saturated with those that I just like shooters with new elements in them. Far Cry 3 has the RPG elements and the open world, Crysis 2 and 3 have the "wide-linear" levels where you can plan your route and approach situations in a variety of ways - and of course, the nanosuit and its abilities.


I'm very excited for Crysis 3 and I hope it delivers. I was so hyped for a sequel when I finished Crysis 2. I'll play it on PS3 and I'm absolutely sure that it will look great on console. But of course I wish that I had a high end PC to run the game on 1080p or an even higher resolution on everything DX11 ultra with all the extras like super high-res textures, full anti aliasing and all the filters and stuff. All the good stuff we don't get on current gen console hardware. Look at Crysis 3, it's BEAUTIFUL. The urban jungle setting is even more impressive than the tropic jungle setting of the first Crysis. In the "fields" gameplay (and in some of the "7 wonders" episodes) you could see the grass and how it reacts to wind (from a helicopter for example, or just normal wind). The grass is NOT a texture, it's 3D. I watched some interviews and I'm sure that from all the currently shown game engines, Cryengine 3 is the most powerful. Frostbite 2 is amazing too, but I always get the feeling that it uses tricks and smoke and mirrors to look good in some aspects, but the CryEngine3 actually renders everything in realtime.

I just hope that the next gen consoles can achieve the graphical fidelity of Crysis 3, maxed out on PC with all the goodies (high-res textures, DX11 effects, all the physics etc. etc.) and run it in 1080p@60FPS. THAT would be awesome. Some of the shown gameplay of Crysis 3 blew me away.

Oh by the way: If a game has great graphical fidelity (and art design - I think the Crysis games have some beatiful vistas and locations) some people just like to hate on it. "You're a graphics wh*re!"... blahblah... Crysis actually has intuitive, fast and responsive and fun controls and FUN GAMEPLAY - and looks very good on consoles. And should you be one of the lucky bastards to have a decent gaming rig, it looks outstandingly good. I'd say a maxed out Crysis 3 has the best overall graphical fidelity at the moment.

Please don't tell me "gameplay is much more important", because I know and I appreciate it. But audiovisual presentation is just as important as gameplay. It adds to the immersion of the player into the game world.

[Coconut_Crunch]

If I were to buy Crysis 3 it would be mainly for the campaign. Crysis has never stood strong in the multiplayer areas as it is mostly concentrated on for the campaign. I don't know if the game sucks or not so I wouldn't be able to tell anyone if it's good. Certainly crysis appeals to a good group of people that have fun with the game and that is all that matters.

[Syphon_Filter]

I won't even read the thread because I know that I would get upset about some truely ignorant posts.

Crysis 2 was absolutely not bad. In fact, I thought it was one of the most exciting shooters on the market. I even downloaded Crysis 1 from PSN just to play it. Yes I know, it's not a great experience on console (Crysis 1), but it's good enough to keep me playing. The story and gameplay hasn't changed, it's just the graphical fidelity that's soooo much worse on the console.

But Crysis 2 was fine. I still think it looks very good - if you look at it from a console point of view. And I don't care if it's sub-HD or whatever, it runs well enough so that I thought it looks good, even great in some places, and the gameplay was so much fun. The nanosuit changes a lot.

I don't know... but I guess people just like to hate on things. If hating on somthing gets popular, then people hate on it. Or they don't approach a game objectively and just WANT to see negative aspects - even when there are none (I'm not saying Crysis 2 doesn't have flaws!).

Look at your standard shooter. Nothing special about them. Aim, shoot, run, crouch, aim, shoot, run, crouch. Shoot at standard enemies. Never will you encounter a triangle-kind of situation. In Crysis 2 for example, you have Alcatraz in the Nanosuit (you), the Ceph (the aliens) and Cell (the human soldiers from the Cell corporation). The firefights can get pretty entertaining when you're thrown into a firefight with a mixed bag of enemies. I thought that was cool.
The weapons feel and sound cool and realistic (realistic in terms of games, of course you can't make a shooting simulator - it wouldn't be fun in a game like Crysis or any other shooter lol), the customization is quick, intuitive and cool and you can change your loadout to fit the situation you're in.

The levels in Crysis 2 were structured more linear than in Crysis 1, but to be honest, Crysis 1 just had one enemy "camp" or something like that and you just ran until you where there, then you'd fight them. There WERE some fights in the woods that had the feel of "open-world" but it wasn't open world at all. And to be honest, the pacing wasn't good at all in those moments. It felt weird. I don't know. Crysis 2 had some pretty big levels too. But people tended to just blast through them and just ran to the objective marker. But you actually could approach your objective marker in a variety of routes, and each route could (or sometimes had to be) dealt with different methods. Sometimes you could sneak past enemies without firing a single shot, or you could confuse them by shooting one enemy, then going in cloak - they will come and look for you - then you'd just sneak around them. Or you went another route. In one of the earlier levels in the game, I realized that I could just climb some structure and go through a small door and that way I didn't have to fight 20+ enemies and could fight the guys at the objective marker stealthy... picking them off one by one.


Crysis 3 will be cool, I'm sure. In my opinion, the Crysis franchise (all three of them) are unique because of the Nanosuit, because of the story and the enemies, and the general style of the game (level structure and everything). Far Cry 3 is special too and freaking awesome, but it's another kind of FPS. But why I throw both Crysis and Far Cry 3 in the same bag is because they are something else. They are different from your standard military first person shooter like COD, Battlefield, or Medal Of Honor. They can be very cool and fun too, but the market is so saturated with those that I just like shooters with new elements in them. Far Cry 3 has the RPG elements and the open world, Crysis 2 and 3 have the "wide-linear" levels where you can plan your route and approach situations in a variety of ways - and of course, the nanosuit and its abilities.


I'm very excited for Crysis 3 and I hope it delivers. I was so hyped for a sequel when I finished Crysis 2. I'll play it on PS3 and I'm absolutely sure that it will look great on console. But of course I wish that I had a high end PC to run the game on 1080p or an even higher resolution on everything DX11 ultra with all the extras like super high-res textures, full anti aliasing and all the filters and stuff. All the good stuff we don't get on current gen console hardware. Look at Crysis 3, it's BEAUTIFUL. The urban jungle setting is even more impressive than the tropic jungle setting of the first Crysis. In the "fields" gameplay (and in some of the "7 wonders" episodes) you could see the grass and how it reacts to wind (from a helicopter for example, or just normal wind). The grass is NOT a texture, it's 3D. I watched some interviews and I'm sure that from all the currently shown game engines, Cryengine 3 is the most powerful. Frostbite 2 is amazing too, but I always get the feeling that it uses tricks and smoke and mirrors to look good in some aspects, but the CryEngine3 actually renders everything in realtime.

I just hope that the next gen consoles can achieve the graphical fidelity of Crysis 3, maxed out on PC with all the goodies (high-res textures, DX11 effects, all the physics etc. etc.) and run it in 1080p@60FPS. THAT would be awesome. Some of the shown gameplay of Crysis 3 blew me away.

Oh by the way: If a game has great graphical fidelity (and art design - I think the Crysis games have some beatiful vistas and locations) some people just like to hate on it. "You're a graphics wh*re!"... blahblah... Crysis actually has intuitive, fast and responsive and fun controls and FUN GAMEPLAY - and looks very good on consoles. And should you be one of the lucky bastards to have a decent gaming rig, it looks outstandingly good. I'd say a maxed out Crysis 3 has the best overall graphical fidelity at the moment.

Please don't tell me "gameplay is much more important", because I know and I appreciate it. But audiovisual presentation is just as important as gameplay. It adds to the immersion of the player into the game world.

Dam man you wrote a lot lol.

[Syphon_Filter]

If I were to buy Crysis 3 it would be mainly for the campaign. Crysis has never stood strong in the multiplayer areas as it is mostly concentrated on for the campaign. I don't know if the game sucks or not so I wouldn't be able to tell anyone if it's good. Certainly crysis appeals to a good group of people that have fun with the game and that is all that matters.

It isn't a bad game as I said trust me.

[CrucesTech]

If you really wanna know about the game just search for the PC version..It leaked like a week ago. All games pretty much do this including hacked PS3, Xbox games. Syphon_Filter is not special at all since anyone can pirate..Wanna shut me up post real pic of you holding game.. That's what I thought