Crysis 3 Isn't Doing So Well On Metacritic Because of Gamer Fatigue: Crytek

Gameranx: "Crytek boss Cevat Yerli explains why Crysis 3, like many other games, isn't as well received as its predecessors."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Tapani1875d ago (Edited 1875d ago )

Yeah, gamer fatigue towards Crytek's games ;)

ChronoJoe1875d ago

That's basically what he says.

"The developer says he thinks he knows why the game isn't scoring so well, and blames it mostly on what he calls "fatigue" for the franchise."

I think it's true to an extent though. Some franchises get boring much faster than others. Others like Call of Duty get away with recycling their content.

morganfell1875d ago

This is because from the beginning the game was a supermodel. Nice looking (not the best) but dead and lifeless where it counts. Only Warhead had a glimmer of personality and this was due to the character of Sean Chapman.

Boody-Bandit1875d ago

morganfell beat me to it.
I couldn't have said it better.

Mounce1875d ago

I'm British, you muppet!

Perjoss1875d ago (Edited 1875d ago )

I've always liked the idea of a dev team alternating between 2 or 3 franchises. There's nothing wrong with waiting 3 or 4 years for the next chapter in your favourite franchise.

Crytek should have something quite different they can make in between Crysis launches. Like a space exploration game or maybe even an RPG set in the Crysis universe, they would obviously need to flesh out the world and lore much more though.

Korix1875d ago

Crysis 1 wasn't the best looking game when it released? lol.
Then what was?

TVippy1875d ago

The idea of making Cry sis 3 was superficial from the start. Crytek simply didn't want to do it, EA sort of made them.

WarThunder1875d ago (Edited 1875d ago )

Who cares about Metacritic?
MetaCritic =/= good game or bad game...

I played a game like Folklore (it had 7/10 on meta) and for me it was one the best game i played this gen.

Metacritic = bunch of useless opinions.

Baka-akaB1875d ago (Edited 1875d ago )

Sums up my feelings from day one bout crysis . Pretty but boring , and i never expected the sequels would lose the only other neat aspect it had going on : it's vast and open nature .

I vastly prefered Farcry 1

As for morgan's "not the best" part of the comment , i'm guessing he is not talking pure and raw tech where the game is a unchallenged beast , but artistry and design .

ALLWRONG1874d ago

The game is too damn short with very little content.

knowyourstuff1874d ago

Right, it had nothing to do with the gaming being less than 5 hours long and having a crappy, disjointed story. It also had nothing to do with the multiplayer being a camper's dream of sitting around with a stealth suit on sniping anyone with no chance of being caught beforehand. Way to balance things, Crytek.

We will see if there is fatigue when Bioshock comes out. I have a feeling the scores will be rather high despite it being also the third in a series within the same generation.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1874d ago
omi25p1875d ago

i dont understand what people are moaning about. Im loving crysis 3.

LAZL0-Panaflex1875d ago

Hell yeah! Graphics are sweet. Multiplayer is great. Just need to find that last collectable!

Tyre1875d ago (Edited 1875d ago )

Agreed, i'm loving it too! Cevat needs to be talking less and better checking ALL the sources instead of stating BS too early. He is causing most of the damage to his own franchise, please dude, stop running your mouth so fast, things are not that bad, f the journalists! Anyways, Metacritic & Journalism is BS.

Rage_S901875d ago

Opinions how do they work?

SilentNegotiator1875d ago

Who's "moaning"? People not caring for a mediocre game isn't "moaning"

Emzx991875d ago

Probably because you're about as easy to entertain as a cat with a ball of yarn. Casual.

Hellsvacancy1875d ago (Edited 1875d ago )

Some people are easily pleased

Edit: Emzx99 beat me to it

I cant stand the Fast/Furious films, they keep making them though, someone must like them

finbars751875d ago

Im with you as well.I love the game.Im surprised that you got so many disagrees.If this was COD then there would be an uproar.

SephirothX211875d ago

One thing going for Crysis 3 besides the beautiful graphics is the non-corridor levels. Look at how linear the levels are in CoD, Halo and Killzone. Disgraceful. Though Far Cry 3 is better than all of the aforementioned shooters imo.

What a very stupid and ignorant comment indeed. Just because he gets entertainment from something that you may not, doesn't mean he is easily entertained. Also Crysis 3 isn't a casual game. If you want to be hardcore, how about you try write a game? Go dig into CryEngine 3 sdk code and level editor and see what you can make.
Or make your own game engine like I have. Then you can call yourself hardcore.

Baka-akaB1875d ago (Edited 1875d ago )

"Do it yourself" is the argument of weaklings . Hell it's no argument at all ... positive feedback or not , it's a piece of entertainement it's there for all to judge .

And those games are linear for their own reason , they provide something else in return , wich we like or not .

C3 isnt even half the open experience of C1 , nor is it half the set pieces and narration from the games you mention ... resulting in a very mixed bag for some or plenty of us . It should have built on C1's strengths instead , instead of just fixing C2 being worse in those aspects

starchild1875d ago

I know what you mean. Crysis 3 is a good game. Some "gamers" have such ridiculous bias and its obvious when they are all just jumping on a bandwagon.

Bordel_19001874d ago

Most of the people moaning about C3 have never played it.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1874d ago
djtek1841875d ago

What about Far Cry or COD?

brave27heart1874d ago

Far cry had a longer development cycle so we didnt seethe games so close together.

I have no sympathy for Crytek since they're sitting on the timesplitters license nd refuse to do anything with it. Its a golden ticket yet you insist on pushing Cryengine 3 at us.

brave27heart1874d ago

Far cry has a longer development time so we dont see the games as often. It works.

I have no sympathy for Crytek since they're sitting on the timesplitters license and refuse to do anything with it. If they want commercial succes they may want to start with that golden ticket and stop pushing Cryengine 3.

3-4-51875d ago

Only one group of people were in a position of power to change that and they chose to walk the same beaten path.

Nobody's fault but their own.

They were given 2-3 years and millions of dollars and that is what they came up with.

I'm willing to bet other smaller dev's with the same budget and time could have created something at least twice as entertaining and fun to play.

games like crysis fall into the Generic games genre of this era.

AngelicIceDiamond1875d ago (Edited 1875d ago )

I think it has something to do with them telling people how great the game looked and their doing "next gen" things with Crysis. While the game looks great on consoles it shines on PC and console gamers know this and feel like they're getting shunned with limited tech that can only take them so far.

believe it or not consumers look for gameplay rather than a games with good lookin graphics.

People don't see next gen in Crysis, its just a game that looks really great with average but with somewhat unique gameplay mechanics.

To top it off they're releasing the game late in the gen. People got they're fix of what this gen can offer and are playing games that are familiar to them.

Despite AC and Cod still getting away with yearly releases.

ATi_Elite1875d ago

Yeh gamers are tired of your $60 Linear tech Demo!

They did fix the MP by adding in some parts of the experience you get from Warface but the SP is Meh!

Crysis is just not worth $60 to Gamers. Makes for a NICE RENTAL though.

StraightPath1875d ago (Edited 1875d ago )

it is atnoshing how many ignorant gamers are on here. So what if a game got around 80% metacritic. This game far excels Crysis 2 in everyway and builds upon its mistakes. I am playing on it on the PS3 and the graphics and visual effects are just outstanding. This game is not all about graphics the actual gameplay is great! Lets you play how you want in open and detailed lush environments brimming with eye candy. Let it be the water , the grass or the lighting the game is one of the best looking console game i seen. i really wonder how amazing it would look on very high settings on a powerful pc if it looks this good on consoles.

use your brain and play the game before you start judging it based on reviews. This one of the best fps on consoles and the best on PS3. I havent played MP but enjoying the campaign being a predator and taking enemies out one by one clearing the entire area without being spotted.

The game is far better then many fps these days. At this moment i can see the game being short as i only see 7 levels

Raider691875d ago (Edited 1875d ago )

You love playing games on consoles at 20-25fps right!I dont!Crysis3 is crap,it cant give the player a smooth play on consoles,gameplay is bland,its all graphics with no substance!I prefer to pick or save my money on Tomb Raider,Gear of War..Metal gear rising,God of War A.Bioshock infinite to the crap Crysis3 any day!Well i prefer Runner 2 to it!I even have a pc able to play it at max settings but guess what,the game is just a pile of crap on the gameplay that im passing it in favour of the other ones i mention and play them on a console.

MuhammadJA1874d ago

Well said! Gamers here are *cool* and love to jump on the hate bandwagon just because some pros out there said so. Their only argument is "it's bland" or "the gameplay sucks" when these hypocrites don't realize that most FPS games play the same.

bunfighterii1874d ago

Exactly. Crysis isn't Call of Duty. You can't just keep releasing the same game and think people won't get sick of it.

I've always thought Crysis games were all flash and no soul. I have the first 2 on PS3 and they were very 'meh'. Didn't finish either of them.

showtimefolks1874d ago

i am a single player only gamer so for me a game with 5hrs of single player means waiting for a half off sale or a big price drop.

everyone who has played the game i know likes it so i don't know why the devs are worried about metacritic.

crysis 1 was very good
crysis 2 i believe took a wrong turn but now for
crysis 3 they are back

IAmLee1874d ago

It's just another generic FPS is the big wide market...

yeahokchief1874d ago

I was thinking about getting the 2nd crysis for ps3, but all of the graphic comparison analysis and focus on graphics turned me off.

Ended up not buying any of them because EA will not get a penny of my money. Although perhaps i could buy em used eventually.

Kornholic1874d ago

I do not get the hatred towards Crysis 3 - it's by no means a mediocre game. I find it highly enjoyable, sure it might not be the best game ever, but still a decent game.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1874d ago
ShugaCane1875d ago

Or maybe because you spent too much time praising how spectacular and revolutionnary the game was. Well, guess what ? It's neither.

booni31875d ago (Edited 1875d ago )

Sure, gamers are the reason the MC score is low. There's no way there's anything wrong with the game itself.

Godchild10201875d ago (Edited 1875d ago )

I think it's because of how Crytek went on about how their game will be the best looking game on consoles for the next 2 or so years. It left a bad vibe, because that is all I heard about the game; how good it looks, but not much about the story. If you look at any of the upcoming exclusive(s) on the PS3, 360 and/or PC, you can see that they don't only look great, if not better, but their story will be better than what Crysis 3 has brought to the table (Just by trailers and gameplay videos).

The way the game looks, is not the only thing that matters. The game can look great, but the gameplay and story can suck and bring the whole game down.

bluetoto1874d ago (Edited 1874d ago )

"The way the game looks, is not the only thing that matters. The game can look great, but the gameplay and story can suck and bring the whole game down."

Wish more devs realized this.

FATAL1TY1875d ago

metacritic: 77 (PC)
user score: 66

hahahaha :D

BrianG1875d ago

Looks like all that talk from the Dev's helped it out immensely /s

JohnApocalypse1875d ago

I feel like critiques are being more critical to games now a days

LightofDarkness1875d ago (Edited 1875d ago )

Yes, it's the reflexive action caused by the dilution of gaming journalism. The "any moron with a blog" problem that rears its ugly head all too often around here. Journalists are now starting to realise that they need to differentiate themselves as actual journalists from the indistinguishable mass of fanboy websites and morons with blogs. It's got a long way to go yet, but it might just get there.

Not only that, but many have begun to shine a light on the somewhat under-handed tactics and shady dealings between publishers and gaming press giants (IGN, Gamespot, etc.), and gamers have grown increasingly distrustful of the once stalwart centres of gaming journalism. They're not likely to completely cease the culture of paid/incentivised reviewing, but they will be working to strike more of a balance between credibility and profit/relevance.

isa_scout1875d ago

So should we have no game journalists? You scold the "any moron with a blog" which I find more trustful than big websites like IGN or even Gameinformer which is owned by Gamestop. Then you say that real journalists like IGN and such are beginning to distinguish themselves from the "any moron with a blog" crowd. Then you call the big sites like IGN, Gamespot, etc. out with their underhanded shady tactics. You need to make up your mind. Do you want more fancy reviews that you have to question the true motives behind the score or do you want less articulate writing but honest reviews from the so called "any moron with a blog" people. Because after all the idiots with a blog are doing it without being paid, but instead as a hobby because they love the medium.They aren't getting a bonus for reviewing a game well, and they aren't recieving gift baskets to sway their opinion. Hell, most of the time their buying the games with their own money. As a writer I find your comment distasteful and harsh. When I review a game I review the game from a gamers perspective, and at the very least people can read my reviews knowing I wasn't paid to give a certain game a certain review score.

mamotte1875d ago

Also, in the past times -really old times- the internet wasn't as big as it's now, and the only way we could know if a game was good or bad was: Try it somehow, or buy a dedicated magazine. So there were only like three or five opinions. Now, everyone (Literally: Everyone)can be a reviewer, or post an opinion about a game. With so many people, with so many tastes, no game will ever please anyone.

We get an overload of information these days. The emotion of discovery has gone to hell too, with so many leaks, opinions, users giving spoilers...

banditscout1875d ago

LoD, and mamotte-- Well said! I couldn't agree more worth the points you two make. Thanks for sharing that.

mi_titan271875d ago (Edited 1875d ago )

I also feel, too many games too short of timeframe and too little time, im a core gamer, but as i get older i have less and less time to game with sooo many games out these days, i tend to play less of them, sequels really lose my purchase.

Games that i havnt played but played the first couple in the series.
-Dead Space 3
-Crysis 3
-Halo 4
-Gears of War: Judgment
-Forza Horizon
-Fable 3

just start to lose interest after a while, need NEW ip's

Gamer-Z1875d ago (Edited 1875d ago )


I agree there's been to much recycling this generation and not enough new ip's to keep things fresh. Devs have literally ran out of ideas so they resort to tacking on useless and unwanted features to a games that are already great in an attempt to keep the ip relevant or they change the game completely to cater to another demographic (casuals).

Eyeco1874d ago (Edited 1874d ago )

That's a fascinating point, and it reminds me of why I respect a company like Nintendo I'm not really a big fan of their games, in one hand you can critique their use of the same IP's on another you can praise the fact that they only release sequels for the most part every 4-5 years.

Now this is great because a wider time frame for the most part allows for a more refined, evolved game. The problem is where seeing to many sequels released every 2 years, to the point where you just get more of the same rather than a more evolved expansive game.

Where seeing too many sequels released in the 1-2 year time frame, its bloody ridiculous, some of the games on you're list are sequels to games we were playing same time in 2011, wasn't Gears Of War 3 released in late 2011 and Judgement is just a few weeks away what is that 18 months ? come on. What we need is fewer sequels, longer release dates and newer IP's to fill the void.

bluetoto1874d ago


"I also feel, too many games too short of timeframe and too little time, im a core gamer, but as i get older i have less and less time to game with sooo many games out these days, i tend to play less of them, sequels really lose my purchase."
Sorry to copy your entire post but it begs to be repeated.

Games that i havnt played but played the first couple in the series.
-Dead Space 3
I still haven't finished 2. It's good, but just more of 1.
-Crysis 3
See point 1
-Halo 4
Couldn't even finish Reach.
-Gears of War: Judgment
See point 1.
-Forza Horizon
-Fable 3
Still haven't even finished 5.

"just start to lose interest after a while, need NEW ip's."

Spot on. These pubs and devs are only hurting themselves in the long run with copy and paste gameplay with a new coat of paint.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1874d ago
nirwanda1875d ago

I think that crytek don't try and buy reviews either,
The big problem with hyping up a game is that if it falls even slightly below expectation it will be marked down far more heavly than if it came out of nowhere.
If they hadn't gone on about how much better the pc version would be then they probably gained better scores from the console versions.

Axonometri1875d ago

Then maybe it's time to make something innovative in the FPS genre. It's been the same old thing with better graphics for two decades. Yes, good game, but can not someone try something new in the first person!?

OcelotRigz1875d ago (Edited 1875d ago )

Exactly, its like if their game looks great and "melts PCs" then they're happy, who cares if the gameplay is the same and as boring as every other shooter out there. Great graphics dont make great games, great gameplay makes great games.

I never liked Crytek, they seem very arrogant and cant take criticism. They're always making excuses like this one and the other usual one "consoles are holding us back because they're limited", well you have a console, you know what it can do, make the best possible game for that consoles specifications. Thats how things work, know your limits, dont make one too "powerful" for it then complain about the limits.

Resistance 3 was the last shooter that felt fresh to me, atmospheric, immersive story and characters that you care about and the most creative use of weaponry ive come across.


I think thats one of my biggest problems at the moment. For all the power that is available now the only thing stepping up is graphics... story seems to have taken a dive. this like AI that I really expected to improve are hardly any better the the AI in HaloCE on the old xbox.

my big worry going forward into the new Gen will be that it's just a repeat of the same.

At the moment I just feel like I can't be bothered with 90% of the games coming out now. They may look good but thats the problem, thats all they seem to do, look good !!

nirwanda1875d ago

@dark witness, i think fps's instead of trying to be all set in big open spaces with no story, make small corridor style games with characters and good storys and choices like deux X.