Top
100°

IGN-Crysis 3 Preview: "A Sun-Dappled Slice of Shader Porn"

IGN:Crysis 2 brought in the reins a bit on player freedom compared to the original, but still managed to preserve all the same gameplay complexities. Even the controls were more refined, letting players use all of the nano-suit's gee-wiz, techno-gadgetry at a whim instead of needing to constantly shift from one mode to the other. It was smart stuff, but it left some wistful about the lack of tactical choices. Crysis 3 repairs this.

The story is too old to be commented.
Crazyglues1388d ago (Edited 1388d ago )

You know the problem with Crysis 2 was the feel of the suit, nothing was wrong with the controls they felt great, but the overall idea of you being a badass never came into play..

you never really felt like you were wearing a special nano-technology suit.. as soon as you said Maximum Armor it just meant you could take bullets for two seconds more then if you didn't put it on.. Lame..

and running, drained all the suit's power so if you tried to run up on guards you died because by then your suit's power was drained.. that's not a super suit. -so instead you had to take cover and then shoot.. that's a super soldier.. ah. no?

I'm wearing a nano-suit for crying out loud let me go crazy

So hopefully they balanced this all out in Crysis 3 and the game will feel more like your a badass...and be an epic game.. I got my fingers crossed for this one as I already pre-ordered it so we shall see..

.____........___...____
.____||......||.......____||
||.........___||.......____||

pandehz1388d ago

I said this same thing 3 hrs after Crysis 2 came out. Crytek just dont get it.

NYC_Gamer1388d ago

Crysis 2 was just boring with a terrible story and lackluster gameplay

neoMAXMLC1388d ago

Plus the graphics were incredibly overhyped and looked terrible on consoles. Far Cry 3 is much more impressive and is what Crysis 2 should have been.

baodeus1388d ago

the graphic is not overhyped in Crysis 2; can't say the same for the gun play though (you can miss a shotgun shot at point blank, :D).

See that is why the graphic isn't overhyped at all because Cryteck focus everything on that rather then getting a smoother gameplay (remember when they have that easter egg saying can Crysis ran on console?). It is still one of those few games on console that look like a high end PC game (but of course not anywhere near mods from suit up PC..). I still think it is the best looking game on console so far (in term of realism).

But seriously, you should just play around with the environment, it is pretty interesting to say the least (no where near as free as Far Cry 3 though, that game is just wack)

neoMAXMLC1387d ago

I disagree. I played the console versions and it was just flat out ugly.... From a sub HD resolution to an atrociously low frame rate and some of the worst AA I've seen... all those factored in makes it into one hell of an ugly game.

baodeus1386d ago (Edited 1386d ago )

which console version and what TV you play it on. I played x360 version and on a 60 inch 1080P HDTV it looks detail, sharp and pretty impressive. Im not gonna mention PC here (everybody knows what it capable of)

Resolution:
Full Resolution: 1280x720
Xbox: 1152x720
PS3: 1024x720
You seriously can tell a little differences in resolution? You must have a really large HDTV or 40/20 eye visions or something.

Framerate:
pretty slow i agree (but not that much slower than other games, still very playable)

AA:
edge blurring and temporal AA = not really AA (Castlevania:LOS didn't have any AA either but it looks Amazing as well because they bombarded with textures and details).

remember when they release a gameplay of Crysis 2 on youtube with the xbox control button pop up, people thought it was running on a PC using x360 controller? It actually was the x360 version. You also seem to ignore everything other impressive techs cryteck put into crysis 2, which made it very impressive visually (i did even mention about the actual techs here)

I think you just over exaggerate the situation.

neoMAXMLC1386d ago

Sure the resolution difference isn't that dramatic but combined with that horrible implementation of AA, it made the game look ridiculously blurry than it should be. Yeah the game had impressive tech but was far too ambitious. What's the point of going the extra mile when the frame rate ends up being garbage?

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1386d ago