Crysis 3: Why The Visuals Matter

Gi - “But can it run Crysis?” has been an internet slogan for all PC gamers since Crytek released the technologically demanding and system destroying first-person shooter in 2007. On Feb 19, gamers may relive that burning question with the release of Crysis 3. Crytek’s CEO Caveat Yerli even went as far as stating that Crysis 3 would melt gamers’ PCs. With much excitement and anticipation for this melting of silicon, message boards are bound to explode with non-stop compatibility questions and frame per second debates. These kinds of discussions alongside Crytek’s reputation for pushing the envelope in terms of graphics and hardware reverberate within the community. So it’s not hard to argue what the Crysis series means to PC gamers. It doesn’t matter if the gameplay is not enjoyable, (which it is) Crysis 3′s impact in the industry will be felt based solely on its graphical merit.

[LackTrue4K]

The first Crysis was there only good game.
Every game after is sooooo Shallow.

[Software_Lover]

I didn't like the Alien battles in the first Crysis. The last battle was............. semi-epic. I hated the cheasy ending battle in Crysis Warhead. they completely changed the Aliens in Crysis 2 which sucked. I hope they do a great job with 3.

Now Crysis Wars was where it was at. I dont know why they changed from that formula.

[EbeneezerGoode]

Agreed on the aliens in the otherwise amazing Crysis 1. However I think Warheads final battle was much better. VERY immersive and epic while not feeling awkward or frustrating.

[AKS]

Crytek? Far Cry was pretty good. Crysis Warhead was pretty similar in style to the original Crysis, the one that you liked.

Crysis 2 was somewhat of a disappointment, but much of the problem appeared to be the delays and scrambling to get it to market. The DX11 and texture pack made it pretty obvious that Crytek underestimated the development time they would need and rushed their first CryEngine3 and multiplatform game. I don't anticipate seeing those issues in Crysis 3. I do not expect it to be a GOTY candidate, but I do expect it to be a better game than Crysis 2.

[Blastoise]

The visuals matter because without them you're left with a very average FPS.

[Mrmagnumman357]

I have to disagree. Crysis is one of the best FPS series. First off, it is one of the few that doesn't feel like Cod, it strays from the formula. It also has always given you options. In the first you were running across an island, able to take out Koreans with stealth, you can run and gun, snipe from a half mile away etc.. In Crysis 2, there were less options, but the vertical combat added a interesting and unique gameplay style. Crysis 3 seems to mix the best of both of these worlds, Crysis' scale with C2's verticality.

[aliengmr]

Crysis didn't feel like CoD but every installment after kept trying to be more like it. Warhead was Crytek's answer to CoD, more linear and cinematic.

EA's been trying to get a CoD of its own for years.

There was nothing unique about Crysis 2, at least on the PC. It was completely forgettable. It just never let go of your hand long enough to let you create you own memorable experience.

I accept that gamers dig this new direction, I don't think any less of the gamers that do, but there is Crysis and then there's the other Crysis games. They have very little in common.

But hey, its just my opinion. I wish them all the best with Crysis 3.

[EbeneezerGoode]

Agreed! The amount of people who either never played Crysis 1 or played it on too slow a system then berated it as 'no gameplay' is amazing.

Crysis one not only looked great but it FELT great to play. It seems almost a knee jerk reaction amongst gamers to assume if something is super great looking it MUST have crappy gameplay, it didn't! Crysis 1 was so immersive and open ended, you could do things a hundred ways and never get bored. I've actually waitied for years for GPUs to finally get good enough to play through Crysis 1 again on best possible settings at super high frame rates just to feel that level of immersion again as if it's fresh. And I already replayed crysis one through more times than any FPS I can remember. That all was possible due to it's design and gameplay. The graphics really helped sell the feeling of stuff actually mattering! no more cartoon FPS's!!

Creeping around in the grass, thinking on the fly, dictating the flow of the game and the feeling all the great graphics and physics provided made the game so much more fun! In this case the graphics / physics helped the game be even better, they weren't there to mask a lack of basic gameplay!

Far Cry 1 was also brilliant in gameplay (and graphics for it's time) but again let down by non human enemies later in the game. Warhead was quite good too but Crysis 2? Not so sure.

Hope C3 is better than 2. Doubt anything will ever beat Crysis original for feel and immersion though.

[HeavenlySnipes]

Are people really gonna pretend that Crysis 2, with its horrible AI (shoot a guy in the head, and the guy next to him won't even flinch), bland weapons, and uninteresting plot was a good game?

I find it hilarious that people are acting like COD is the gold standard for FPS campaigns, its not. Having a better campaign than Call of Duty isn't an accomplishment.

Regardless of what Crysis did, the second was in fact a very average FPS; and the third looks to follow suit. There is really nothing interesting about the series now other than the visuals

[ratcop22]

Crysis honestly doesn't have amazing gameplay but it's decent.

[JedMan1985]

Depends on how you play it.

[ratcop22]

not really.