Try our new beta!Click here
100°
Submitted by NYC_Gamer 1158d ago | preview

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. (Crysis 3, PC, PS3, Xbox 360)

Crazyglues  +   1158d 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..

.____........___...____
.____||......||.......____||
||.........___||.......____||
#1 (Edited 1158d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
pandehz  +   1158d ago
I said this same thing 3 hrs after Crysis 2 came out. Crytek just dont get it.
NYC_Gamer  +   1158d ago
Crysis 2 was just boring with a terrible story and lackluster gameplay
neoMAXMLC  +   1158d 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.
baodeus  +   1158d 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)
neoMAXMLC  +   1157d 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.
baodeus  +   1157d 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.
#2.1.3 (Edited 1157d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
neoMAXMLC  +   1156d 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?

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember
New stories
20°

Earthbound and David Bowie: An Unlikely Couple

5m ago - Earthbound was always well-known for "borrowing" some of its musical inspiration but there was an... | Retro
20°

CheatCC's Official Call to Delay Star Fox Zero

5m ago - Pump the breaks, Nintendo. If one of your flagship franchises isn't controlling like it should, t... | Wii U
Ad

Guess N4G Game of the Year Winners, win a $300 Amazon Gift Card

Now - Also enter for a chance to win a gift card for writing a user blog, writing a user review, or being a top contributor for the month. | Promoted post
20°

Rice Chat: Pre-Street Fighter V, Competitive Play, and NateHawke’s Top Tips

6m ago - "With Street Fighter V coming out next week Peter, Geraint, and Oscar sit down to talk about what... | PS4
30°

Rocket League Update 1.11 Lands on PS4 and PC

6m ago - Developer Psyonix has released a brand new update for Rocket League on the PlayStation 4 and PC,... | PC
20°

Arslan: The Warriors of Legend (PS4) [Worth It?]

6m ago - What's Up with Omega Forces's Latest Game? | PC