Those next-gen games? Yeah, one just arrived

We’ve been swept away by a wave of talk about next-gen consoles since Sony unveiled the specs for the PlayStation 4, and we’re due for another round when Microsoft reveals the next Xbox. The reception for the PS4 specs has largely been positive, even among PC gamers, because of what it means for future games. The PS4 looks to match the graphics horsepower of today’s mid-range GPUs, something like a Radeon HD 7850. Making that sort of hardware the baseline for the next generation of consoles is probably a good thing for gaming, the argument goes.

Much of this talk is about potential, about the future possibilities for games as a medium, about fluidity and visual fidelity that your rods and cones will soak up like a sponge, crying out for more.

And I’m all for it.

But what if somebody had released a game that already realized that potential, that used the very best of today’s graphics and CPU power to advance the state of the art in plainly revolutionary fashion, and nobody noticed?

Seems to me, that’s pretty much what has happened with Crysis 3. I installed the game earlier this week, aware of the hype around it and expecting, heck, I dunno what—a bit of an improvement over Crysis 2, I suppose, that would probably run sluggishly even on high-end hardware. (And yes, I’m using high-end hardware, of course: dual Radeon HD 7970s on one rig and a GeForce GTX Titan on the other, both attached to a four-megapixel 30" monitor. Job perk, you know.)

Nothing had prepared me for what I encountered when the game got underway.

 

I’ve seen Far Cry 3 and Assasin’s Creed 3 and other big-name games with "three" in their titles that pump out the eye candy, some of them very decent and impressive and such, but what Crytek has accomplished with Crysis 3 moves well beyond anything else out there. The experience they’re creating in real time simply hasn’t been seen before, not all in one place. You can break it down to a host of component parts—an advanced lighting model, high-res textures, complex environments and models, a convincing physics simulation, expressive facial animation, great artwork, and what have you. Each one of those components in Crysis 3 is probably the best I’ve ever seen in an interactive medium.

And yes, the jaw-dropping cinematics are all created in real time in the game engine, not pre-rendered to video.

But that’s boring. What’s exciting is how all of those things come together to make the world you’re seeing projected in front of your face seem real, alive, and dangerous. To me, this game is a milestone; it advances the frontiers of the medium and illustrates how much better games can be. This is one of those "a-ha!" moments in tech, where expectations are reset with a tingly, positive feeling. Progress has happened, and it’s not hard to see.

Once I realized that fact, I popped open a browser tab and started looking at reviews of Crysis 3, to find out what others had to say about the game. I suppose that was the wrong place to go, since game reviewing has long since moved into fancy-pants criticism that worries about whether the title in question successfully spans genres or does other things that sound vaguely French in origin. Yeah, I like games that push those sorts of boundaries, too, but sometimes you have to stop and see the forest full of impeccably lit, perfectly rendered trees.

 

Seems to me like, particularly in North America, gamers have somehow lost sight of the value of high-quality visuals and how they contribute to the sense of immersion and, yes, fun in gaming. Perhaps we’ve scanned through too many low-IQ forum arguments about visual quality versus gameplay, as if the two things were somehow part of an engineering tradeoff, where more of one equals less of the other. Perhaps the makers of big-budget games have provided too many examples of games that seem to bear out that logic. I think we could include Crytek in that mix, with the way Crysis 2 wrapped an infuriatingly mediocre game in ridiculously high-zoot clothing.

Whatever our malfunction is, we ought to get past it. Visuals aren’t everything, but these visuals sure are something. A game this gorgeous is inherently more compelling than a sad, Xboxy-looking console port where all surfaces appear to be the same brand of shiny, blurry plastic, where the people talking look like eerily animated mannequins. Even if Crytek has too closely answered, you know, the call of duty when it comes to gameplay and storylines, they have undoubtedly achieved something momentous in Crysis 3. They’ve made grass look real, bridged the uncanny valley with incredible-looking human characters, and packed more detail into each square inch of this game than you’ll find anywhere else. Crysis 3‘s core conceit, that you’re stealthily hunting down bad guys while navigating through this incredibly rich environment, works well because of the stellar visuals, sound, and physics.

My sense is that Crysis 3 should run pretty well at "high" settings on most decent gaming PCs, too. If not on yours, well, it may be time to upgrade. Doing so will buy you a ticket to a whole new generation of visual fidelity in real-time graphics. I’d say that’s worth it. To give you a sense of what you’d be getting, have a look at the images in the gallery below. Click "view full size" to see them in their full four-megapixel glory. About half the shots were take in Crysis 3‘s "high" image quality mode, since "very high" was a little sluggish, so yes, it can get even better as PC graphics continues marching forward.

Comments closed
    • GrimDanfango
    • 7 years ago

    A step aside from the endless debate about whether the game is actually any good…

    I found this quality settings comparison highly amusing:
    [url<]http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/crysis_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,4.html[/url<] Check out the difference between "Low" and "Very High" - with the full res BMPs at the bottom. I think it's rather remarkable that on "Low" the game *still* looks leaps-and-bounds ahead of just about any other game on the market, and that's sacrificing shadowing entirely. Medium looks fantastic, and mostly you seem to just get thicker foliage and slightly refined lighting stepping up from there.

    • stephaniej3xoxx
    • 7 years ago
    • Kaleid
    • 7 years ago

    Meh. This is evolution and not a revolution. Bring on the PS4 and 720 and then perhaps better things can happen.

    [url<]http://i.imgur.com/PsG6ilt.png[/url<]

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      Excepted that it took an ENTIRE 8800 power to achieve this. (And no hair 🙂
      But for the PS4 thats just an in game character.

      And kudos for using a faded out, low contrast shoot of a projection for the ps4 shot

      In game characters on PS4:
      [url<]http://www.geimaku.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Deep-Down_2013_02-20-13_002.jpg[/url<] [url<]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ru_cRu22hu4/USaDJLWAb2I/AAAAAAAAASk/USNPDgcPlck/s1600/Old+an.jpg[/url<]

    • chelseyhartz4xxo
    • 7 years ago
    • Arbie
    • 7 years ago

    @Silus

    I agree with you 1000%. EXACTLY the same situation pertained in 2007 when Crysis appeared. The game was spectacular, with supremely fluid combat, just the right balance between linearity and sandbox, terrific graphics, first-rate physics, advanced AI, excellent voice acting, a decent story, and… the list went on. And it was wonderfully scalable – contrary to ALL the badmouthing it was enjoyable on even low-midrange PCs. I ran it on a year 2001 Pentium box with an Nvidia 7600GS graphics card.

    So what did gamers say to this marvel? They screamed bloody murder because Crytek had the nerver to release a game ON WHICH YOU COULD NOT YET MAX OUT THE SETTINGS !!!. And as FatherXmas points out, a game is worthless unless you can do that.

    Never mind that Crytek had delivered arguably the best shooter ever (and yes I love the UT series). And never mind that to even max the settings you would need Vista with DX10, and no gamer (or almost anyone else) was buying that. Never mind that technology would soon catch up (do you expect a game developer to ALSO have a crystal ball on that issue?). It was just one long, vindictive bitch session. Having been promised since Far Cry that Crysis would be spectacular, our community was absolutely determined to hate it. One “gamer” website rated it as the worst of 2007. Oh – and the cover art was the worst too. Jesus.

    So Crytek understandably bailed out of PC games, and went where they could make far more money and people complain less because standards are MUCH lower. I said at the time that we would not see the equal of Crysis / Warhead for many years, because even then the roll to consoles was obvious. And I doubt we’re really seeing the equal of it here, all things considered – but I’m willing to be corrected in that and even more willing to enjoy what we’ve got.

      • GrimDanfango
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]So what did gamers say to this marvel? They screamed bloody murder because Crytek had the nerver to release a game ON WHICH YOU COULD NOT YET MAX OUT THE SETTINGS !!!. And as FatherXmas points out, a game is worthless unless you can do that.[/quote<] Heh, you mirror exactly my thoughts back in 2007. Regardless of what the game was like, or the fact that on "Medium" settings, it eclipsed every other game on the market by miles visually, the endless waves of hatred bemoaning how abysmally coded it was rolled forth, because the "Ultra" setting didn't run very fast even on £300 graphics cards of the time. I predicted at the time, that their next release would just rename "High" as "Ultra", and sure enough Warhead did exactly that... suddenly "Ultra" ran silky smooth on the same hardware. Nothing had changed in the code, they'd just dropped the top end settings to appease the idiots. Since then it seems to have devolved into this odd state of nonchalance, where it seems like everyone felt so burned the first time that they're hellbent on shrugging off the graphics as irrelevant now, no matter how good they are, and shrugging off the rest of the game at the same time, regardless of any genuine good qualities it possesses.

    • ThorAxe
    • 7 years ago

    Thank you Scott for articulating what I have been thinking about Crysis 3 and the review scores. It feels good to not be alone. 🙂

    In a somewhat related note I read a review where the author referred to Psycho as a “random soldier”. Never mind that the random soldier was the focus of Crysis Warhead.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 7 years ago

    I remember when the word immersion was coined for games. Where Fidelity would allow for better gameplay. That notion was beat to death but its still true as it ever was. Graphics aren’t visual design, aren’t gameplay. Inversley when was the last time you appreciated a game with outright bad graphics or poor visual deisgn??? Who still plays pong?

    I believe Crysis was one of the best games in recent memory to nail immersion. The convergence of complex AI, beautiful visuals achieved through amazing technology and brilliant visual design to really pull you into a world and let that immersion fuel the gameplay. Every second in the world was full of dozens of nuance decisions. The way the environment reacted to the player wasn’t just amazing tech but fueled phenomenal gameplay.

    I look at those screen shots and read the encouraging words and hope that the same feeling of awe and wonder might grace me again as I play this game. Time to finally finish crysis 2 and get this title.

      • Kaleid
      • 7 years ago

      Was the AI really that complex? They drown by just being a couple of seconds in the water. North Korean schooling is utterly lacking.

      • clone
      • 7 years ago

      I’d argue Doom 3 nailed immersion far better than any other game I’ve played…. and that had a lot more to do with the sound and the talents of Trent Reznor.

    • mcnabney
    • 7 years ago

    Why is this even being compared to NexGen consoles? It is already way PAST NexGen consoles based upon the simple fact that it runs natively on a 4MP display. The new consoles are still only going to support 1080p gaming (at least now they will actually render @1080p instead of upscaling to it).

    • TAViX
    • 7 years ago

    Guys seriously.
    This is the most boring game I have played in a long time. Agree, the graphics is very good, but that’s a bout it. I had absolutely no need to replay this after finishing it, just uninstalled it and good by.
    I still miss gameplay like the first Deus Ex, Unreal, Quake, Half Life 1/2, System Shock, etc, etc. Compare to those Crysis 3 is like an indie game… Sad.

      • flip-mode
      • 7 years ago

      Should a game have to be replayable or just enjoyable the first time?

        • NeronetFi
        • 7 years ago

        Glass Half Empty or Glass Half Full 😛 IMO if a game is enjoyable, I normally play through it again 🙂

        • GrimDanfango
        • 7 years ago

        Replayability is the last criteria I consider. If a game can keep me interested through an entire single playthrough, it goes straight in the “most remarkable games of all time” category. I really can’t ever bring myself to go back and trawl through for the parts of an experience I missed the first time.

        I want to experience the entirety of developers’ unrestrained creativity, without padding, and without needing to quit my job. There’s just too many different gaming experiences in the world to keep plodding back over the same one.

        I dread games that tout “100+ hours, endless replayability”.
        Well, except Firaxis games… those I dread for the same reason, but in a good way 😛

        • clone
        • 7 years ago

        depends on whether or not your company plans on selling a sequel, high replayability leads to positive experience, leads to prolonged positive experience left with fond memory of the game.

        game with no replayability leads to a game considered decent & quickly forgotten with only the memory that it was a one trick pony.

          • GrimDanfango
          • 7 years ago

          Speak for yourself. For me, high replayability often leads to lack of focus in game design, repetition, and a less memorable product.
          Games with no replayability often focus their development on making that short span of game well refined and consistently surprising and engaging.

          Not in all cases, there are one or two sprawling, highly replayable games that pull off consistently high-quality, non-repetitive gameplay (not many though), and naturally, there are plenty of games of all kinds, short, non-replayable ones included, that are just poorly made.

          Of all the best games I’ve played over the years though, none of my favourites have offered enormous replay value.

      • kamikaziechameleon
      • 7 years ago

      Replay-ability in a SP is not a concern for me or most of the world, you know one in five gamers finish games they start? I didn’t replay witcher 2. I didn’t replay any of the games you’ve listed, bioshock, oblivion, fallout 3… I don’t know how you can compare a game with next to no complexity like unreal or quake to something like crysis but whatever. The point still stands SP games and replay-ability have never really been a thing except for those people with the itch to play things to death. Doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate choice.

      Weather you replay or not its a very tangible impact on the experience and how organic it feels. That is unless its Bio-ware or a game like theirs, then it literally has that feeling like they are gating experiences to drive the multi-ple play through types with in a prompt that might as well screem CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE THIS TIME! not super organic or beneficial to the notion of players choosing since it basically undermines all non choice interactions(the kind that make up most of the game)

        • clone
        • 7 years ago

        FreeSpace 2 and FreeSpace at least a dozen times, Tachyon at least 5 times over the years and will be doing it again, replayed Bioshock through 3 X’s, replayed the entire Stalker series 2X through (although Clear Sky’s bad ending kinda makes me lose interest) and will be playing most of them again.

        played StarCraft and BroodWar for 10 years, single and multiplayer, Diablo several times single and multiplayer (although I’ve grown to hate the Diablo series’s multiplayer aspects that demand constant play, constant online, requires group play in order acquire decent crap and demands that I flush characters each year…. totally offensive which is why I’ve not gotten Diablo 3), the assorted Mechwarriors several times through, played Half Life 2X’s have played Half Life 2 and it’s expansions through from start to finish every time a new one came out and will be doing it again when HL3 comes out to refesh my memory on story

        Dawn of War, COD, even played Unreal GOTY single player and multi player for almost a decade….depends on the quality of the game and the habits of the gamer I guess.

        I don’t even notice new games anymore unless they are quite good and spoken of for quite a while, too much in the catalog already.

    • Silus
    • 7 years ago

    Once more, Crytek just can’t win. It gives PC Gamers one of the best shooters around, with high customization options in both weaponry and nano-suit…a huge armory with highly sophisticated weapons with multiple firing modes and types of ammo, which coupled with the nano-suit, result in great ways to hunt down the enemies. Plus the continuation of an interesting story that in this third installment finally reveals some points that were hazy in Crysis 2.
    All that in the most beautiful and well designed environments you’ll find in ANY game today, with jaw dropping graphics that can be customized at will by any avid PC Gamer, with all the options available right in the game itself.

    Still, just one look at the comments around here and we’re back to “it’s just a tech demo, nothing more”…Would be interesting to know which game is actually a better shooter than Crysis 3 for these people. Oh and with better graphics to boot.
    There’s also the typical hypocrity, since when a game with amazing graphics comes along we get the “gameplay is what matters” argument, but then a game with mediocre graphics comes along and it’s “how can a game in this day and age, have such crappy graphics ?”…

    Frankly, the majority of PC Gamers deserve to be greeted with $60 games that are nothing more than console ports, with crappy graphics, lack of customization in-game, horrible textures, mouse acceleration and deficient FoV settings.

      • GrimDanfango
      • 7 years ago

      I must admit, as much as the basic gameplay isn’t particularly spectacular, it’s always solid. For some reason it does seem like Crytek are consistently held up to higher standards for gameplay than any other shooter, simply on account of the graphics.

      I can’t really think of any other major PC-release shooters recently that were anything special gameplay-wise… Rage wasn’t, Far Cry 3 really wasn’t… Far Cry 3 got inexplicably good reviews for a game with middling graphics, middling gameplay, and arbitrary forced-open-world collectables-hunting – all that seemed to be forgiven based solely on a competently written story… not exceptional, but competent, and the fact it’s an open-world-sandbox, which of course, means all other sins are forgiven 🙂

      I really have always found Crytek games had a solid, engaging feel that most other shooters lack. Maybe the plot is a bit shoddy, maybe it is a bit linear and uninspired, but I really do agree, it’s a hell of a lot better than the “tech demo” everyone is so quick to write it off as.

        • BiggieShady
        • 7 years ago

        “Far Cry 3 is an open-world-sandbox, which of course, means all other sins are forgiven”

        That is so true, it’s almost like we value our game in square kilometers or miles. Like we bought a plot of virtual land. When our freedom to travel is missing from a world that looks as good as in Crysis 3, it’s a sudden break from immersion.

      • indeego
      • 7 years ago

      All I ask for is better AI. And it doesn’t look like any attempt was made.

      In the first game there was a part where you could camp out in a trailer and kill 20+ enemies just by hanging out and wait for them to spasmodically show up in front of the trailer’s door. Can’t simple code be made to say “If player is detected in trailer, start to throw grenades, start to snipe him out of view, stay away from trailer and wait.” That is scripted AI, but it’s so simple to implement! And would add incredible amounts of fun to the game! Can you imagine thinking you are being all clever and the enemy actually waited for you?

      Can you imagine playing a game where you are hunted, intelligently, or at least MORE intelligently than these types of games where you are a one-man force?

      And I don’t mean multiplayer. Multiplayer is interesting, but it also is immersion-breaking. People ragequit, or they find cheats, or they curse and yell or insult. I really want a good intelligent AI in a game like this. It really makes me sweat and think and be clever.

        • alphadogg
        • 7 years ago

        +100 if I could…

      • StuG
      • 7 years ago

      I will say that I have enjoyed the entire Crysis series. I have 3 now, and I think Crysis 2 out of all of them was the worst. Still worth playing though.

      • Laykun
      • 7 years ago

      You’re entitled to your opinion about gameplay and Crysis 3. But I’d like to point out that listing numerous gameplay “features” does not make a game great.

      Gameplay (and the game overall), in my opinion, is like a symphony of instruments used to create an overall experience that doesn’t primarily focus on any one of the individual elements yet uses the strengths of each instrument to get across a feeling or emoition. Much like a symphony, the gameplay elements are used to tell a story and for me this game is like a whole bunch of people crashing symbols together and beating horn instruments with pipes to produce the theme song for Barney the dinosaur. Sure they have all the instruments, but they haven’t been implemented to a satisfying effect. I blame the conductor.

      • Arbie
      • 7 years ago

      @Silus

      I agree with you 1000%. EXACTLY the same situation pertained in 2007 when Crysis appeared. The game was spectacular, with supremely fluid combat, just the right balance between linearity and sandbox, terrific graphics, first-rate physics, excellent voice acting, a decent story, and… the list goes on. And it was wonderfully scalable – contrary to ALL the badmouthing it was enjoyable on even low-midrange PCs. I ran it on a year 2001 Pentium box with an Nvidia 7600GS graphics card.

      So what did gamers say to this marvel? They screamed bloody murder because Crytek had the nerver to release a game ON WHICH YOU COULD NOT YET MAX OUT THE SETTINGS !!!. And as FatherXmas points out, a game is worthless unless you can do that.

      Never mind that Crytek had delivered arguably the best shooter ever (and yes I love the UT series). And never mind that to even max the settings you would need Vista with DX10, and no gamer (or almost anyone else) was buying that. Never mind that technology would soon catch up (do you expect a game developer to ALSO have a crystal ball on that issue?). It was just one long, vindictive bitch session. Having been promised since Far Cry that Crysis would be spectacular, our community was absolutely determined to hate it. One gamer website rated it as one of the ten worst games of 2007. Jesus.

      So Crytek understandably bailed out of PC games, and went where they could make far more money and people complain less because standards are MUCH lower. I said at the time that we would not see the equal of Crysis / Warhead for many years, because even then the roll to consoles was obvious. And I doubt we’re really seeing the equal of it here, all things considered – but I’m willing to be corrected in that.

        • Silus
        • 7 years ago

        Yep, the standards to which Crytek must abide to, are much higher than any other company for whatever reason. The original Crysis was probably the last shooter to be tailored to the PC and brought highly customizable options that resulted in gameplay improvements over the generic shooters of the time (and even today), plus nearly photo realistic graphics.

        Crysis games reception has been as follows basically:

        Crysis: “tech demo, that’s it” or “it doesn’t run at max settings on my 3 year old computer, so it sucks”
        Crysis Warhead: “runs better, but it’s not as pretty as the original Crysis”
        Crysis 2: “WTF??? There’s no DX11 support, Crytek sucks”
        Crysis 3: “meh pretty graphics and that’s all”

        They just can’t win and as much as I wouldn’t like that to happen, it wouldn’t surprise me if they made something like Epic. Just focus on selling their engine and ignoring the PC for the most part, while making exclusive titles for consoles. But hopefully sales are good enough so that this doesn’t happen.

      • Krogoth
      • 7 years ago

      Crysis 1 was a crappy System Shock/Deus Ex rip-off that recycled graphical content from Far Cry I. At the time, it push systems to their knees and set the bar for DX10-era games. However, the gameplay wasn’t that stellar nor brought anything new to the FPS table. At best, it was a playable tech demo that set the bar for DX10-era stuff. Unfortunately, the steep system requirements at the time made other development house wary of picking up Cryengine 2.

      Crysis 2 was a straight copy-paste job that threw tessellation into the graphical equation (poorly, I might add). Crysis 2 might have been lackluster, but the Cryengine 3 had better luck this time with being adopted by other development houses.

      Crysis 3 seems to be a repeat of Crysis 1 expect it is demoing on what DX11 era hardware can provide. Massive doses of eye candy paired with forgettable plot and gameplay. There’s nothing wrong with this from a business standpoint. Crysis 3 is a great tech demo for Crytek. The eye candy junkies and FPS kiddies are hooked to it. Which gives other development houses with have better talents at making more fun and compelling games a reason to pick up Cryengine 4 for their next project.

      Don’t worry, Id Software has played this strategy for years. Idtech 2 engine (Quake 3) was one of the most commercially successful gaming engines. Epic has done the same thing with Unreal 3.0 Engine. Crytek is trying their stab at it. Perhaps, they might have some success this time around.

        • GrimDanfango
        • 7 years ago

        This is still blustering over the point that a few of us are making – that we actually find the gameplay solid and enjoyable, and it’s not just a graphics tech-demo to us.

        I really enjoyed Crysis 1. I actually found it a breath of fresh air next to all the console drivel of the time. That had nothing to do with the graphics and everything to do with it being a solid, enjoyable game, with a decent sense of freedom-of-choice in its levels, and very little sense of being herded along an invisible track.

        I agree, Crysis 2 was a bit of a misstep, because they specifically removed some of the elements I enjoyed about the first in favour of a more console-like path-herding design.

        • Kaleid
        • 7 years ago

        “Crysis 1 was a crappy System Shock/Deus Ex rip-off that recycled graphical content from Far Cry I”

        Huh? C1 was nothing like SS and DX1. The gameplay in Crysis isn’t really that deep at all.

      • lethal
      • 7 years ago

      They DID win with the first one:

      [url<]http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/931665-crysis/index.html[/url<] not to mention that it sold over 3 million copies on the PC [i<]alone[/i<]. Sure, a lot people yelled about how it was melting their PCs, but it was a success on pretty much any metric and it got praised for its graphics and gameplay. They got blasted on the second one for dumbing down gameplay (on rails shooter, no vehicles, no lean, player moved like it was hauling a lead anchor, even stupidier AI, too easy, way shorter, etc) and for not pushing the graphics like the first one. They also really crapped the already thin plot by killing the previous main character in a comic (WTF?), having almost no mention of the events of the previous games, killing the only character you know on the first 5 minutes and using a silent protagonist, making all the events of the first game almost irrelevant to the plot, while the new cast is pretty much forgettable. Overall sales were also weaker, with a estimated 3 million copies sold for [i<]all[/i<] platforms to date. For the third game this post yells "GRAPHICS ARE BACK", but the other aspects of the game are barely touched. From other sites I've read, the game is even easier now, shorter but its at least more open, while the it tries to salvage the plot a bit from previous games. I might get it later with a newer PC and a hefty discount.

      • clone
      • 7 years ago

      I’m not sure I understand your logic, I played FarCry and loved it, a tour de force for it’s time, Crysis sucked (badly scaled FOV transitions, weak AI, short), Crysis 2 sucked and now were on Crysis 3….. a tech demo and all 3 suffer from the same thing gamers have been complaining about since Crysis 1.

      weak AI.

      so here we are with Crysis 3 with …… weak AI…. and Silus you believe Crytek deserves a “break”, that PC gamers should just throw money at them for not doing what they’ve been asking for since Crysis 1?

      where is that logic?….. you believe the heart of a games immersion lies in the weapons selection?

      I personally haven’t gotten into the story either but that at least I can forgive Crytek for, it’s a matter of taste but weak AI is a fundamental flaw that’s crossed 3 games and because this is the third game that has yet to address the issue I’m supposed to praise Crytek for not fixing it?

      it’s not about the graphics Silus, you may not understand this but it’s never been about the graphics, I was playing Mechwarrior Mercenaries last week (2002 game) and was every bit as immersed as I was playing Doom 3 as I was playing Unreal Tournament GOTY as I was playing Half Life 2 as I was playing Freespace 2 and none of those games have the graphics that the Crysis has…. immersion comes from the quality of the game not the prettiness of the pixels.

      you can go strawman and talk up pong for all I care, quality PC games have strong graphics, immersive atmosphere, stronger groundbreaking AI and strong story, Crysis by your own deliberate omissions has some but not all and yet you blame the consumer for it’s failings despite gamers saying they’ve wanted better AI since it was created.

      IMPROVE THE AI!!! and Crytek will be loved, leave it alone and they will wind up like ID, bought out so that John can do other stuff.

      p.s. I like the screenshots but until the AI improves I don’t really care.

        • Silus
        • 7 years ago

        Show me one complaint about “weak AI” as the basis to criticize Crysis games and I’ll show you 10 complaints of “bad performance on older systems, so Crytek can’t code” or “it doesn’t have DX11 so it sucks”.

        Your conclusion that my post was just about graphics, just shows how ridiculous your reading comprehension is. Just because you don’t consider many of the elements I mentioned as good for immersion sake (in game like this), doesn’t mean you are right or even that you can conclude something that I didn’t even say. Actually doing just that, just shows how self centered you are, especially with the “you can say what you want for all I care”.

        No game is perfect and Crysis games are no exception, but we have a shortage of PC tailored games since consoles get and will continue to get the priority, while PCs get only the scraps called “console ports”.
        Crysis games, for the most part, have met most of what’s needed for a game to be PC oriented instead of a console port. You talk about weak AI as the mother of all problems, but I can mention many other games with weak AI (even weaker), but also fail in every other point that Crysis games deliver.
        Crytek games have been greeted with nearly impossible odds to meet and if they fail in the slightest way, even in the most ridiculous aspects (Crysis 2 not having DX11 at launch for example) they are criticized. Other companies get way with more, for giving us PC Gamers, much less and that’s my contention. So I reiterate, the majority of PC Gamers deserve to get $60 games that are nothing more than console ports.

          • clone
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]Crysis's AI sucks, it doesn't scale well because of bad coding and it doesn't have the latest DX support[/quote<]..... these are all valid criticisms ( DX doesn't matter so long as it looks good) but the real reason the Crysis series is getting criticized is because the games overall continue to fail the gamer. Crytek has repeatedly focused so many resources on graphics that gameplay, the story, the AI, and the length of the game have been repeatedly compromised, if Crysis3 was 3/4's the length of FarCry, had improved AI or more creative levels that made decent use of scripting along with a decent story it wouldn't be considered a tech demo... it'd be considered a revolution, a renaissance in gaming. Doom 3 was graphically great, great atmosphere but as a game was little more than a compilation of cheap parlor tricks and poor AI.... taking these things for granted, taking consumers for granted will kill legacies and the Doom legacy along with ID's gaming legacy went because of it. now look at Half Life. Valve's series has legendary status with gamers yet the series was never a graphics tour de force, the AI was only decent which was enough because overall the game was fantastic, story, gloriously immersive, creative levels, frenetic gameplay and puzzle elements, all round an entertaining go..... to quote "the closest thing to being in an action movie you'll ever get". from a business perspective it's likely much better for Crytek to release a graphics engine than a real game.... which is what they've done. don't blame gamers for understanding that.

      • bryjoered
      • 7 years ago

      There are PLENTY of shooters better than this trite and meaningless game. You wanna talk about recent FPS? Far Cry 3 is a far better game in all aspects besides graphics, that’s just naming one of the most recent ones. IN this generation? Let’s see Battlefield BC2 and BF3, COD4, Bioshock, CRYSIS 1 (BY LEAPS AND BOUNDS) Any of the Halos, I’m just naming a couple of the top of my head here.

      No one is saying that a game is not more immersive with great graphics, in this case, the best graphics in any title ever. What people are saying is great graphics can’t make up for lack of innovation on the gameplay front, LACK OF CHALLENGE, and a terrible story. I also agree that many PC gamers a elitist faggots, but that is besides the point. This game isn’t good on any platform, it is OK i’ll give it that.

      Thank god it does have good graphics, cuz if not it would be a steaming pile, with them it is mediocre, I’m glad you find graphics more compelling than good and innovative gameplay, real gamers don’t care like good games.

      There aren’t that many single player focused FPS anymore, but I think that many would agree that HL2 was one of the best (Best in my opinion) Think about what it has and compare it to Crysis 3

      * Great Graphics (For it’s time)
      * Varied Environments
      * Awesome Guns/Weapons
      * Challenging and Cunning Enemies
      * Varied and exciting vehicle Sections

      Besides the Graphics, Crysis 3 does a mediocre job at this list and a terrible job of presenting compelling enemies, besides the stalker aliens. Some of the alien guns are fun, but the normal guns are your standard COD type. The bow, while awesome, is too overwhelmingly powerful.

      I still don’t understand, how can a company make such a great shooter in Crysis 1 and then, make not one, but 2 successive games that are worse in every way. Crysis 1 at least had some challenge, while it was not brutal or anything. I have Crysis 3 on the second from the highest difficulty and I just stay cloaked and take out soldier after soldier without a scratch with the overpowered bow.

      Whoever said Far Cry 3 sucks, because of the hunting, you REALLY are being a nitpicker here. The combat in Far Cry takes big poops on Crysis 3’s pretty face, even with the cheap healing mechanic. Taking out camps is a blast as is the varied and unique weapons. I’ll admit some of the alien weapons are really fun in Crysis 3, but there is never those “Holy Crap” moments that every good FPS campaign should have, unless you’re talking about the visuals, which truly are breathtaking.

        • jonjonjon
        • 7 years ago

        ill take smooth gameplay over graphics any day. crysis feels clunky and the multiplayer is terrible.

    • tbone8ty
    • 7 years ago

    when will we see an in depth article on cpu and gpu performance for crysis 3?

    • Ph.D
    • 7 years ago

    Bit of a disappointing dig at game reviewers to be honest. Gameplay is very rightly way more important than graphics and while Crysis 3 has STUNNING graphics (provided you have the hardware to make them shine) it is also very mediocre when it comes to gameplay.

    Maybe you don’t play a lot of video games, I do not know. But if that is the case you should not act so condescending to people who do because, aside from graphics, Crysis 3 offers very little to the medium of gaming.
    You can argue about just how much graphics matter, but I sure hope you will never make them even remotely as important as the gameplay. Otherwise you could just go watch a movie or something. (Man just look at those Transformers! Nevermind the rest of the movie is actual dog shit, JUST LOOK AT THAT CGI!)

    I would say the Crysis games have the potential to become great games, the technical fundamentals are all in place. Crytek just needs to figure out how to actually create a compelling experience with them (something they have not succeeded at even once as far as I’m concerned).
    Maybe Crytek should check out CD Projekt RED for inspiration since those guys have already shown you can have great graphics AND good gameplay AND interesting stories and characters with a game like The Witcher 2.

    Next-gen has arrived? Why would PC gaming care about gaming generations? Constant evolution is the name of the game and Crysis 3 only pushes the envelope in a very limited way. I was more impressed with what Battlefield 3 managed to do in the graphics department, the scalability of that game was/is astonishing. And that’s not even mentioning the superb audio, something so often overlooked.

      • Pancake
      • 7 years ago

      The last time I bought a game purely for the hyped graphics technology was when Doom 3 came out. I think I played it for maybe 45 minutes before uninstalling it because it was such a horrible game to actually play. Last ID game I’ve bought too…

    • FatherXmas
    • 7 years ago

    It doesn’t make a difference how pretty a game is if only a very small subset of gamers have a rig that can play it with all the bells and whistles turned on or up to the settings that Scott was playing it at.

    Nothing disappoints, depresses and aggravates a gamer more than buying a game after reading a review praising the visuals and finding out they need to be made of money to have a rig powerful enough to achieve the same screenshots without the game turning into a stutter fest.

    That is one of the few upsides to consoles, what you see in a review is what you get and everyone gets the same level of visual quality.

    I hope that if TR uses this game as a benchmark in the future that they compare the look from this super rig to what you would see using only a $250-300 video card at 1090p with the settings adjusted to get a 30+ fps rate.

      • flip-mode
      • 7 years ago

      I don’t see that as valid. Game graphics take leaps, graphics cards take leaps. One day we’re complaining about how nothing stresses our graphics cards and we can still play everything on our 3-year old graphics card. The next day Crysis 3 comes out and we’re complaining it’s too graphically intense.

      Nope. That’s bunk.

        • Kurotetsu
        • 7 years ago

        +infinity

        Games like this are required to give graphics cards hardware an excuse to advance. If your rig cant handle it then just don’t bother buying it or turn the settings down. Even with decreased graphics settings games like this still tend to look better comparatively to other games at the same settings.

      • Pancake
      • 7 years ago

      If you’ve been a gamer for any length of time you’ll be aware turning up the eye candy needs a premium rig. If you can’t afford it then pull your head in and dial down the settings. No use complaining when you’re running with average components.

      • Silus
      • 7 years ago

      You just showed the fantasy world that many people live in…that “there’s an upside to consoles”, because what you see in a review shows you the same visual quality when you actually play it on your console.

      Why is that a fantasy world you ask ? Because with consoles, you stop in time. You don’t get any better graphics, because the developers already decided what were the details that their game could run on a certain console. You won’t get more or less. You are not allowed to mess with it at all. I’s always the same and always limited to that static hardware configuration in a console. It will never change and will stay the same for probably half a decade or more.
      With a PC you can change the visuals fidelity by tinkering with the settings. You can stick with something that works for your configuration, but you can also make it much smoother for online sessions for example. And you can also make it a slideshow, while marveling at the amazing graphics that no console can produce. And if that marvel is too good, you can simply swap your graphics card for something better, that by itself will already be better than a console (even next-gen console) for less than half of the price.

      That’s exactly what’s great about the PC: configuration, customization, mess with settings to improve your gaming experience. You won’t get any of that with a console. If a game has performance issues in a console (and there are many examples of that) you can’t do a thing, except wait for the developers to release a patch that fixes those issues.

        • FatherXmas
        • 7 years ago

        Actually the last console I owned was a Dreamcast, I’ve been a PC gamer since the time of Hercules graphic cards and games came on their own boot floppy (Pirates!).

        My point is that the race between games, video cards and drivers can be discouraging to the average PC gamer who can’t afford to upgrade their rig every 12-18 months. Being a PC gamer is a lot like maintaining your own exotic sports car. However if all you know is where the gas goes you can still use a car. If you don’t have the chops to be riding the bleeding edge with beta drivers and continuously spending money on top end equipment then advertising the “graphics quality” of a game or a game engine isn’t going to mean all the much to potential players.

        My point with consoles is just that. Because of the fix platform, a “gamer” needs not to be concern/upset/depressed about how Richy Rich gets to play in a much more photorealistic world than they can. It’s a level playing field and because of that it’s pulling a lot of potential customers away from playing those titles on PCs.

        Also if “graphics quality” isn’t a sales point that most of your potential customer base can enjoy, then all the time, effort and cost to develop all those high quality assets doesn’t really contribute to sales. I don’t know many people who would spend $100s just to improve the look of a $60 game. On top of that, the inflated development cost now means, to insure maximum income to offset that cost, usually ever harsher DRM to stop all those “pirates” (YARR!). Every sale is needed and market penetration needs to be absurdly high.

        You all don’t see the vicious circle this creates and why people are constantly saying PC gaming is dying. It’s not really dying but it’s becoming ever more elitist when AAA titles are involved. The pool of PC players that can enjoy all the bells and whistles for these games is shrinking and that’s why industry pundits are saying PC gaming is dying.

        I’m not saying stop the march forward in graphics quality, just aim a bit lower so more players can enjoy it. It’ll increase sales and potentially reduce development costs. Everyone wins. Except those who spend more on their rigs annually than most people spend on their internet connection.

      • spugm1r3
      • 7 years ago

      The flipside is building that insane rig and having a multitude of poor console ports designed for 8 year old hardware to make you wonder why you spent the money. Enthusiasts, true enthusiasts, don’t build those systems simply to conquer everything out there. They build their systems to test what they can achieve against the most strenuous applications available. Stomping all over everything out there tells you nothing about what you achieved. Thankfully there are companies like Crytek that attempt to provide the industry with a new benchmark, that say to the enthusiast, “You’ve been tested, and you have been found wanting.”

    • GatoRat
    • 7 years ago

    I’ve watched movies which were visually stunning, yet left me bored and unsatisfied. Conversely, I’ve watched immensely entertaining movies which weren’t that great with the cinematography and editing. The same is true for games. To praise a game simply because it appeals to your visual sense is just as foolish and snobbish as praising one for appealing purely to your intellect.

    This isn’t to say Crysis 3 is good or bad–I haven’t played it yet–but without a strong, engaging story, the graphics are irrelevant. Game publishers, like all entertainment producers, ignore this at their peril.

      • raghu78
      • 7 years ago

      well said. the most successful games are not the ones with the best graphics or visual quality. they are the most innovative and entertaining games. Halo, GTA, World of Warcraft are popular franchises because of gameplay and not just graphics. You don’t need photorealistic graphics to make a good game. But you definitely need innovative and interesting gameplay to make a good game. Portal is an example of game which creates a new genre with its innovation in gameplay.

    • Deo Domuique
    • 7 years ago

    “A game this gorgeous is inherently more compelling than a sad, Xboxy-looking console port where all surfaces appear to be the same brand of shiny, blurry plastic, where the people talking look like eerily animated mannequins.”

    Did you have Mass Effect 3 in mind? I really hate the graphics of Mass Effect 3… They remind me Doom 3 or even a previous era. Even the horrible blurry cinematics and all, break the immersion. On other hand, I almost finished Crysis 1, I stopped playing after 2-3 levels on Crysis 2 and I’ll see if Crysis 3 will be the first that I will eventually finish. In my case, it’s true that becomes dull and boring.

    Anyway… I’m always seeking good graphics. I’m really not amused by a game that has to offer only the broad term “gameplay”. That’s why I like PS4 and the fact it’s a pure PC; and I hope the progress we’re going to feel even we, as PC gamers, will last at least 2-3 years. At the very least, hideous plastic-like graphics with zero AI, I hope they will be gone forever… True HD textures with more complex AI and movement should become a standard.

    • WaltC
    • 7 years ago

    Scott, hasn’t this always been the argument against consoles–that they hold back the progress of graphics development in 3d games because the technology they are based on is so old it’s creaking? The new consoles I find encouraging for essentially two reasons:

    *Everybody in the console business is joining the ongoing x86 party, finally, which means it will make much more sense for game developers to bring PCs back in as their chief developmental platform–work should flow down, or over, to the new consoles almost seamlessly.

    *Because of that fact–that consoles will amount to little more than moderately inexpensive x86 gaming platforms whose highest use will be as the Netflix platform for the living room–more people will be migrating back to the PC for their 3d gaming. That is only rational. I see new console sales going through the roof somewhat because of frustrated, pent-up demand by console enthusiasts (but mainly for the Netflix platform as I said), which means that [i<]eventually[/i<] consoles will just fade away and be absorbed by the PC as 3d gaming platforms. The PC is already the price-performance winner for 3d gaming, but these new consoles will merely underscore that fact in the years ahead. Not everyone today owns twin 7970's or a Titan to enjoy on 30" RGB monitors, but what's so very cool about this stuff and about folks like you owning and appreciating it is that someday sooner than we think the level of hardware you are enjoying right now will become the *mean* in the market and practically everyone will then be able to afford it! That is the incredibly super (ach-that word!) thing about the PC market--it never stands still (unlike the consoles of the past.) You are exactly right--it is happening right now--and Crysis 3 is merely the tip of the iceberg! Last point about the new consoles. Migrating to AMD x86 also means a new day for console makers in that they don't have to worry about heavy optimization for an involved, non-standard platform (see: PS3) that will take them literally years to properly learn--which means much added developmental costs as well. From now on, console OEMs can offer a new console, upgraded and improved, year over year if they want! And they can do this without losing backwards compatibility. This will finally mean that the stagnation caused in recent years because of consoles will effectively end. Going this route with AMD's gpucpu products--the best in the x86 business by a mile--will turn everything we knew about the old console business on its ear, imo. Prospects for progress just got a whole lot better.

    • alienstorexxx
    • 7 years ago

    i’ve really disliked crysis 2 in overall. and wasn’t giving this game a chance until you posted this. i liked it, but the game keeps being bored if you don’t play as the game is programmed to. so if you use stealth is a cool game, but if you try to go as a tank or cod style is pretty boring. AI isn’t polished as it should after that many years, so, it’s quite clear why nobody works on this engine, except for ftp online fps games.
    graphically is stunning and well optimized, even on my HD5770 i manage to run at 720p, with smaa x2, everything on high except shadows on medium; postprocessing and particles on very high. it’s incredible that i didn’t noticed at any moment the fact that the game was running on a non native resolution of my monitor (wich is 1440×900).
    it’s incredible that i bought this gpu now 3 years ago and keeps fighting with this pixel monsters.

    • Laykun
    • 7 years ago

    This game looks beautiful, but it suffers from the CoD syndrome. The single player is made for children, it’s full of immersion breaking bugs, terrible plot, constant all on action explosion earthquakes and stupid characters.

    A washing machine is the Ceph’s greatest enemy; it’s funny and also depressing to watch large robots get touched by a washing machine and just curl up and die.

    Unfortunately the developers have focused so much on the visuals that they forgot about the interactivity of the world they are making. Since the first Far Cry you’ve been able to push barrels over, I remember doing it so … so many times; yet in this new installment they are static objects. Crysis had destructable buildings that were beyond fun. Not here. It’s a look but don’t touch kinda of game.

      • Meadows
      • 7 years ago

      “constant all on action explosion earthquakes and stupid characters”

      My god you just perfectly explained what I didn’t like about Max Payne 3. From the get-go to nearly halfway into the game, you’re forced to constantly run, move, hurry, every character urges you to pick up the pace, even Max’s inside narrative talks about how you “don’t have much time” all the time.

      I remember being able to just idly look around, explore, and find hidden stuff and extra clues in the previous Max Payne games, but in Max Payne 3 half of the levels don’t even accomodate looking around, and I constantly get bothered or yelled at by the game if I even dare stop for a second.

      When did gaming get this hyperactive? I don’t like it. Imagine if Episode Three had you run on a timer, if the time runs out you randomly die, and every time you stop to break an ammo crate Alyx shrieks at you how you “don’t care about her dad anymore”. That’s how this feels like.

    • symmetrical
    • 7 years ago

    Great write-up Scott. I’ve been an avid listener of the Podcast and you are the one I like to listen to. But the thing with Crysis 3, it’s strange because it’s one of those games that has so much detail, you tend to miss it. I found myself after a second play through, noticing things I didn’t at first. The way Psycho’s clothing just waves in the wind, or the way metal looks on the Ceph and even how detailed the weapons are etc.

    Sadly though, most “average consumers” do NOT have such an eye for detail and will miss these things. The entry point for them is game play. That’s why Call of Duty sells millions. Most of them don’t even know what frames per seconds are. To them, it’s either “smoother” or “not smooth.” But games are meant to be played and enjoyed, so in a way we can’t knock them for that.

    As for the PS4/NextBox, I hope this will give rise to better PC games in terms of multi-threading. Looking back, there are only a hand full of PC games that actually push the hardware. Crysis 3 being the rarest of them all. You look at Planetside 2 which can barely tax 2 threads and it makes you wonder why on such a massive multiplayer game they don’t invest in better multi-threading. My i7-2600K just twiddles its fingers at 15% usage and quite frankly, it’s annoying.

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    “Perhaps we’ve scanned through too many low-IQ forum arguments about visual quality versus gameplay, as if the two things were somehow part of an engineering tradeoff, where more of one equals less of the other.”

    Sounds like a argument I’ve made a half a dozen other times when people keep asserting that graphics don’t matter and it’s all about gameplay. Or where they assert that lower visual fidelity allows the game makers to produce better gameplay (somehow?!).

    I really hope companies will still push forward into the world of physics. It’s quite sad that push died off with Ageia. That’s a mix of eye candy and gameplay all in one.

      • rechicero
      • 7 years ago

      That’s not so wrong. Lower visual fidelity means lower budget, and lower budget means you can afford taking risks with gameplay…

        • Bensam123
        • 7 years ago

        I don’t think there is a correlation between risk and budget. You either find funding or you don’t. Some people assume there is a little slider that moves up and down that magically meets in a nice area as far as funding goes. You can magically shift resources around in game development and it equals another.

        You can have good gameplay with a cheap budget or an expensive one. Good gameplay doesn’t necessarily entail risk either. Nor does ‘experimental’ gameplay entail good game play. They’re independent from each other. I don’t think there are many people that consider games disposable so they can take ‘risks’ on them they don’t actually think will work or there is a certain percentage that it wont.

    • idgarad
    • 7 years ago

    Oh God their glossy dead eyes!!

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 7 years ago

    The graphics are great. I think what I wish is that physics (directcompute, not PhysX) would hurry up and become a part of these gaming worlds. If I shoot a wall, it should crumble a la Red Faction. I should be able to kick up dirt. Make a pile of dirt. I should be able to take my superhuman strength, tear a chunk out of a wall and fling it at the enemy. I should be able to leap onto a ledge and it crumble, not because of some pre-determined bs, but because I’m a big guy in a robotic suit and I’m really, really heavy when I dense up my armor.

    I want hair that moves freely and comes loose when you move around. I want ragdoll physics that aren’t ragdoll-like in their uniformity. I want real wind, not scripted, and I want to be able to kill my enemies by shooting the ceiling until it caves in on them and it not be scripted.

    I want real physics and I want it across the entire gaming world without having the explosive barrels and “Here’s a lit section, go interact with this and watch the cutscene of a roof cave in!” crap that we have now. Until that happens, all the visual effects in the world are swell, but they ain’t pushing gaming realism forward much at all. They’re just making the Disneyworld attraction I’m in a little less It’s a Small World and a little more Star Tours. But I’m still on a ride and a hollow shell of one at that.

    I think at some point visual effects are slick, but we need to see games that use more than that to convey “realism.”

    Plus, it doesn’t help that this is apparently the last Crysis and the last console-style game Crytek is ever going to make. If you believe their comments on the subject.

    (I’m excluding Homefront 2 because they WERE working on that for THQ before they went bust and I suspect it’s been built not to exceed consoles by much at all, so even post-THQ it won’t do much to push the whole technical discussion along much.)

    So an artist makes a great final case for how great things can be and then leaves that style behind for the greener pastures of commercials and selling out via F2P.

    • yogibbear
    • 7 years ago

    I just blame timing… I know this game won’t run well on my q9450/560ti combo… AND I’m waiting till Haswell comes out to upgrade… but Haswell was supposably meant to come out in March-May time period… but somehow that seems like slipping till Q3… so now I don’t know 🙁

    • marraco
    • 7 years ago

    But green scenarios are scarce. A bit on the start, and some bits. Nothing more.

    • lethal
    • 7 years ago

    Gameplay wise, how would you rate it to the original Crysis? I loved the first one and Warhead, the second one was a pretty horrid corridor shooter in comparison. I got the first one in the maximun edition years ago and I still play it today, the second one after beating the SP mode in less than 7 hours I have barely even touched it =s.

    • ultima_trev
    • 7 years ago

    I loved Crysis 1/Crysis Warhead/Crysis 2, but Crysis 3 is the most unoptimized P.O.S. ever. With an i7 870 and HD 7850 OCed to 1 GHz I can’t even manage playable framerates at Medium settings.

      • rupert3k
      • 7 years ago

      My dear fellow there is no way on earth a 7850 is going to run Crysis 3 properly, if you wish to play graphically demanding games you need a graphically capable card.

    • Ryhadar
    • 7 years ago

    Do want, but I always have to wrestle with the decision to purchase.

    I’ve got such a backlog of games it isn’t even funny, on the other hand I want to support PC gaming. I also have a pretty fast graphics card now… but in the future I’m sure I’ll have a faster one so I’ll be able to enjoy the game’s graphics better later!

    …You see what I mean?

    • End User
    • 7 years ago

    The game is stunning.

    Settings are High on 2 year old GTX 570’s @ 1920×1200.

    • danny e.
    • 7 years ago

    So, the reviews I’m reading say about 6 to 8 hours of gameplay. Really? $60 for 8 hours?
    I’ve put over 40 hours into Borderlands 2. I’m not sure any game can look good enough to make me pay $60 for 8 hours.

    Edit: I guess I’ll wait for the 75% off Steam sale in November…. 2014.

      • JohnC
      • 7 years ago

      Yea, it’s very short… There’s multiplayer, though (the “hunter mode” is pretty fun).

    • sschaem
    • 7 years ago

    But whats most interesting is that Crysis 3 killed the intel advantage.
    and thats not going to change as game will be optimized for many core, not few core with high IPC like we have now.

    Also the 7950 3GB is now $270 with Crysis3 and Bioshock Infinite

    And knowing the PS4 and xbox will be GCN based, like the 7950, it seem like THE card to get at the moment.

    I’m in the market for a new PC, so I’m looking at all this closely, and for some reason it seem I would make a grave mistake if I go intel+nvidia if I want to keep my PC for more then the next 12 month. (I have an intel+nvidia pc now)

    Unless I’m kookoo crazy, it seem an fx-8350 ($180) + 7950 is a killer deal as gaming PC goes.

    • sli
    • 7 years ago

    Anyone know if power struggle is a game type? Also do the suit abilities function the same as Crysis 1? How double tapping a key would turn on or off the ability. I didn’t care to be limited to only the use of the wheel in Crysis 2. And the multiplayer in Crysis 2 was a bit shallow, solo one man DM type of gameplay regardless the gametype. I want LARGE open maps Power Struggle style! Heck even the Crysis 1 DM maps where way more open.

    Orgin, suit functions and lack of power struggle will be enough for me not to consider this beautiful game. If Origin was the only factor to consider, I think I’d pick this one up.

    • swaaye
    • 7 years ago

    The faces and foliage impress me most I think.

      • Firestarter
      • 7 years ago

      foliage is very hard to get right, especially with weather/wind

    • hubick
    • 7 years ago

    I play Battlefield pretty much exclusively. It’s my game. It’s what I like. I don’t want to play any other games, and that’s my damn right.

    I’m also damn tired of people begrudging me the graphical updates I look forward to with each new generation of the game. Those take the game I like and make it better.

    I can’t wait to until BF gets graphics like this, and I can get a 4K TV to run it on.

    • jessterman21
    • 7 years ago

    So excited when this was posted today! My thoughts exactly about the game. Reading this reminds me of all the Crysis reviews I read when I downloaded the SP demo a few years ago: “half the game sucks, but the visuals are so good, they actually elevate the gameplay.” Everyone likes to deify the original game, but if you read the reviews from 2007/2008, they’re about as mixed as the Crysis 3 reviews are. But they all agree: the best graphics of their time.

    I would rather have an eye-meltingly immersive world than amazing gameplay with blocky characters and muddy textures. Mostly the reason I haven’t bothered buying Skyrim – no matter what mods I layer on, the immersion would be broken the first time I talk to any NPC. And I’ve heard Dishonored is amazing, but is lacking in the visuals department. And I can’t play more than a half-hour of Spec Ops: the Line without wanting to slap the cinematics director for not noticing the abhorrent textures in all those close-up shots.

    I’m also incredibly impressed with the textures in Crysis 3 thus far – and all the amazing AA options. When I cranked up SMAA to x4 on my paltry 1440×900 monitor in the beta, the image was nearly perfect. I know it can’t touch 4MP resolutions, but it’s a sight better than Crysis 2 at it’s best AA settings.

      • auxy
      • 7 years ago

      [quote=”jessterman21″<]no matter what mods I layer on, the immersion would be broken the first time I talk to any NPC.[/quote<] Wha? ლ(ಠ_ಠლ)

    • fEsTiDiOuS
    • 7 years ago

    Origin – Ugh. I paid good money for Battlefield 3; but all I got was progress quest…. Origin made me download and reinstall that stupid thing so many time I’ve given up. If I loose a steam game I can just copy a friends common directory and be up and running in a few minutes. Origin – no thanks!

    • yogibbear
    • 7 years ago

    I got bored in Warhead and haven’t played Crysis 2… why would I jump straight into 3 having seen how terribly derivative the gameplay became so quickly after the genius that was Crysis 1? I thought TR heavily bagged Crysis 2 for being a terrible tech demo AND having terrible gameplay. Don’t you all go telling me they fixed both problems and somehow got a metacritic score < 8/10 with supposably the best graphics ever? I don’t believe this. It doesn’t make sense.

      • willmore
      • 7 years ago

      “Genius” maybe?

        • yogibbear
        • 7 years ago

        Shhh I come here when I’m tired. 🙁

          • willmore
          • 7 years ago

          You had just gotten done correcting danny e. 🙂

            • yogibbear
            • 7 years ago

            I was answering his question. There’s a difference between that and typing errors 🙁

      • Kougar
      • 7 years ago

      Sounds about right. Graphics are nice to have, but they will never fully make up for a lack of story, or heavy use of scripted triggers & events along funneled corridor based maps.

      Beautiful graphics that hide sloppy rendering shortcuts is what Crysis is known for. Water tessellation under an entire map without any water, anyone? And wasn’t it TR that ran several articles showcasing how sloppily and unoptimized tessellation was done on concrete barricades? Then where were physics engine problems, like walking over sheet metal from a destroyed building, stubbing a toe and falling over dead (was funny the first couple times)…

      So before bashing all the reviews, can ya say they actually fixed all these self-created problems from Crysis 1 & 2 with 3?

    • danny e.
    • 7 years ago

    Went to take a look at prices on Steam. Wasn’t on Steam. No sale. Also, what DRM is Crysis 3 using?

    Edit: looks like just Origin? I have no experience with that. But I’m not too keen on another distributor. Just give in to the Steam monopoly!

      • yogibbear
      • 7 years ago

      Origin?

    • danny e.
    • 7 years ago

    During the course of the game you can sit down at one of the computer terminals within the game and fire up and play Far Cry. Within the game! When the developers were asked about it they responded: “Yes, you can play Far Cry within the game. Why Far Cry? Well, unfortunately, it can not run Crysis”.

    • Parallax
    • 7 years ago

    One thing I wish newer games would forgo is the use of chromatic aberration simulation (color fringes most pronounced at the edge of the display). It makes the “revolutionary” graphics look like they were filmed through a crappy $5 lens.

    I find it extremely ironic that the game engine makers have added for the sake of realism what lens makers have always aspired to remove for the sake of realism. That’s even more true for a “first-person” shooter, since last I checked almost nobody can see the chromatic imperfections in their own vision.

      • auxy
      • 7 years ago

      TO BE FAIR… In Crysis you are looking through a visor. :3

      But yes, I generally agree with you. \(^∀^)メ(^∀^)ノ

    • Krogoth
    • 7 years ago

    Nice tech demo and DX11 benchmark.

    Not much else.

      • Sam125
      • 7 years ago

      Why is it so hard to impress you? 😛

        • ULYXX
        • 7 years ago

        I have grown to welcome his lack of impressed as he just does it so well. It’s almost an art form. Like a haiku of “meh.”

      • GrimDanfango
      • 7 years ago

      I often find myself thinking – what if Futuremark released Crysis. If everyone was *expecting* a tech-demo, would they be blown away by it given the fact that it was a decent playable game too.

      Not suggesting it’s a great game, but it’s a competent game, and a world apart from a graphics tech demo.

      • auxy
      • 7 years ago

      I’m actually more interested in the gameplay than I am in the graphics. I [b<]LIKE[/b<] Crysis' gameplay, and the graphics still don't look that impressive to me; they're not that different from what Unreal Engine or id Tech or MT Framework games are doing, just higher-resolution and higher-density (in terms of particles and foliage). I certainly don't think they're anything that should knock a GTX Titan down to 30 FPS at 1080. ┐( ̄ヮ ̄)┌ tl;dr it looks nice, but I disagree that it's revolutionary; just evolutionary.

      • rwburnham
      • 7 years ago

      Always the cynic.

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      to be fair, it’s a 75% average. not exactly an excellent review
      [url<]http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html?search=crysis+3&numrev=3&site=[/url<]

        • End User
        • 7 years ago

        Have you played it?

          • indeego
          • 7 years ago

          DO YOU EVEN PLAY IT, BRO?

            • End User
            • 7 years ago

            Yup

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          hahhahahahaahhaahhaahaaahhhahahhaa no.
          but me playing it has nothing to do with its crap GR and MC scores.

            • End User
            • 7 years ago

            List the PC games that you have played in the past month.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            far cry 3, dishonored, civ v, orcs must die 2, heroes of newerth, mirrors edge, deus ex hr, hitman absolution, probably some other ones, but that’s what i can recall in 20 seconds.

            • Meadows
            • 7 years ago

            Good grief, who still plays Mirror’s Edge?

            • auxy
            • 7 years ago

            Me! It’s one of my favorite games of all time! As a female (and coincidentally, Asian) [i<]traceur[/i<] with a problem with oppressive authority, it's one of very few games where I can honestly relate completely to the protagonist. (゚∀゚✌)

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            Hahaha girls don’t play games!!! Everyone knows that! And they especially don’t go to tech sites!!! Though you do use silly characters like a girl… Now I’m confused

            • Srsly_Bro
            • 7 years ago

            dont be confused ssk i think shes trying to be a girl gamer but they are never good.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            I just started for the first time

      • sli
      • 7 years ago

      That’s a line that e-machine noobs use. You one of them?

      The COD tards could not handle the concept of Power Struggle. Which when you think about it is basically Conquest+.

      I was not originally interested in this game, but to see that it looks this good, I just may jump on it. Just as long as the multiplayer maps are as large as the original. Crysis 2 felt more like a COD style of game too me.

      • Meadows
      • 7 years ago

      [url<]http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/9301/krogs.jpg[/url<]

      • Bensam123
      • 7 years ago

      Krogoth, always trying to push the world forward by not being impressed with impressive feats… Yet somehow being impressed by none impressive feats. Krogoth do you age backwards?

      • Malphas
      • 7 years ago

      Krogoth’s right, and I’m surprised he’s being voted down so much for it. I’ve always viewed the Crysis series this way also. It doesn’t detract from how impressive the graphical fidelity is with the engine, but Crysis 1/2/3 are not really games, they’re just elaborate tech demos. If the visuals in them were merely average rather than outstanding they’d be universally panned and sold on Steam for $7.

      • DeadOfKnight
      • 7 years ago

      But it’s so pretty!

    • Voldenuit
    • 7 years ago

    Scott, I just downloaded Dwarf Fortress last night and plan to play it during the weekend. I’ll let you know if the ANSI Code 147 text graphics blow my mind and if they make my GPU overheat ;).

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 7 years ago

    I remember thinking this playing the original crysis.

      • TheEmrys
      • 7 years ago

      I remember thinking this playing Far Cry.

      • swaaye
      • 7 years ago

      Wing Commander 3!

    • Goty
    • 7 years ago

    Maybe I’m alone in this, but the poor vegetation modeling really isn’t doing it for me, especially in the second and last screenshots; it’s just a bunch of 2D textures with different position angles. We’ve been doing that for years. The character rendering is great, yes, but that’s a small part of the game.

    • Disco
    • 7 years ago

    Those people look absolutely amazing. Remember when we all thought Alyx and G-man in HL2 were simply incredible in their realism? These new images remind me how long ago (in both years and technological terms) that was…

    I know it makes me seem superficial, but I’m buying Crysis 3 just because of this editorial by Scott.

      • indeego
      • 7 years ago

      You gonna buy the $1K-$2.5K in parts it requires also?

        • Disco
        • 7 years ago

        Don’t you think you are exaggerating just a bit?…

        I’ve got a 7970, a 1090T, and 8 GB of RAM. Other than the video card I bought last fall, the rest is almost 3 yrs old. I think that will be good enough to enjoy the game. Also, I don’t play at those rediculous resolutions that Scott does. I’ve got quite a backlog of games at the moment, but I’ll be sure to let you know how it works when I get to it.

          • indeego
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]"Also, I don't play at those rediculous resolutions that Scott does. "[/quote<] Then you aren't reproducing what we are seeing here, are you? The screenshots are at that "ridiculous" resolution, which means you will need a crappy $300 Korean to $1000 Dell/NEC/LG display added.

            • Sam125
            • 7 years ago

            Some people are just so obviously green with envy. Don’t hate, “[b<]bro[/b<]". LOL :p

            • JohnC
            • 7 years ago

            Sad, but true.

            • indeego
            • 7 years ago

            You remember my periods! Cuddles!

            • Srsly_Bro
            • 7 years ago

            I think you should be the one remembering your period, not us. 🙂

            • JohnC
            • 7 years ago

            I can see same level of impressive graphical fidelity even on my 1080p monitor, which cost me significantly less than $1000, even including the calibrator for it (which I bought separately). Have you actually played the game?

            • indeego
            • 7 years ago

            > Have you actually played the game?

            Strawman much?

            Scott claims to run the game on a “decent” high-end gaming PC. He then lists two of the most expensive cards and monitor styles out there. Checking TR’s editor’s choice shows me $1500 just to build a “decent” system. That doesn’t include monitor. I stand by you will need to pay $1K-2.5K to play this game at this visual fidelity. Can you disprove this for me please, instead of asking if I’ve played the game?

            Sam125 posts paying $400 [i<]just for the video card.[/i<] A good IPS monitor (not crappy who-knows-what'll-happen-Korean) is another ~$1000. So perhaps just say "I can almost play this game at these resolutions if I spend a few grand more!"

            • Stickmansam
            • 7 years ago

            *cough*

            [url<]http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/642/bench/VeryHigh_02.png[/url<] Even for high... [url<]http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/642/bench/High_02.png[/url<] medium is still iffy for mid range cards [url<]http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/642/bench/Medium_02.png[/url<] And something akin to this is likely why [url<]https://techreport.com/review/21404/crysis-2-tessellation-too-much-of-a-good-thing[/url<] Call me when I don't have to get 500+ in GPU's to get decent performance at high settings $225 i5 + $110 mb + $45 ram + $70 1tb HDD + $450 680 (just to get 50fps avg on 1200p high) + $50 PSU +$50 case = $1k rig to play crysis 3 on high, very high will need 2 680's so 1.5k for that I would consider a single 680 rig to be a pretty good system for most gamer and average build for people who like to max games out, so you need to spend an extra $500 just out max out crysis

            • auxy
            • 7 years ago

            This, exactly! (ノ ̄д ̄)ノ

            The game looks good but it must be horribly unoptimized to run the way it does. It’s horrible!

            • Meadows
            • 7 years ago

            No it’s not. There are pretty healthy differences between the cards, the most expensive systems today can max it out without issue. I don’t support dumbing down graphics just so everyone could select the “very high” graphics profile, because that’s just communism. If you feel the OCD-induced need to max out everything, then pay for it.

            • indeego
            • 7 years ago

            You have proved my “You gonna buy the $1K-$2.5K in parts it requires also?” statement, thank you! 1K will get you the low end of playability for the graphics you see here.

            (Wow so <30 fps is acceptable for this gaming generation eh? Well, I think you proved my point, but I guess you can call it either way, as you wish.)

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            30fps is fine with me.

            • Ifalna
            • 7 years ago

            30FPS is perfectly fine for single player. In MP you play at low settings anyway because you want less foliage and clear sight.

            Also, game is fresh. Neither Nvidia nor AMD have had a chance to optimize their drivers yet. So they will squeeze out a little more.

            BTW: do you remember Crysis 1 back in the day on a 8800GTX?
            Yeah try playing on DX10 – ultra on that one.
            Remeber Far Cry 1?
            I tried to game @ 800×600 with an 9600xt, because I was too poor for the 9800XT. I had 10-15FPS tops.

            If you want to push the envelope, you have to exceed what todays hardware can do. In 2 generations, even a midrange card will do Cry3 just fine.

            • JohnC
            • 7 years ago

            So you’re just trying to troll… Ok, then.

            • Meadows
            • 7 years ago

            What are you talking about? Korean monitors are the only ones I’d ever buy. (Same with phones, and it’s a tie with Germany regarding cars.)

            • indeego
            • 7 years ago

            That sure has convinced me. “Korean monitors get solid review from random Internet poster.”

            • Meadows
            • 7 years ago

            No worse than your random internet disapproval.

            • indeego
            • 7 years ago

            So you’re saying you are a reverse Krogoth? Interesting.

            • Suspenders
            • 7 years ago

            The Germans make good vacuum cleaners too (Miele), if you’re ever in the market for one 🙂

            • shaq_mobile
            • 7 years ago

            arent those crappy korean models just re cabineted for some of those more well known companies?

            • auxy
            • 7 years ago

            They’re panels that didn’t make the cut (for whatever reason) to be included in Apple Cinema Displays and were tossed. (*・_・)ノ⌒■

            [edit] Downvotes for mentioning Apple, I guess? (•‿•) -ok-

            • Sam125
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<] Downvotes for mentioning Apple, I guess? (•‿•) -ok-[/quote<] Psst, read this: [url<]https://techreport.com/review/23291/those-27-inch-ips-displays-from-korea-are-for-real[/url<] A little birdie told you. :p

            • auxy
            • 7 years ago

            Told me what? There’s nothing in that article that contradicts me.

            • Sam125
            • 7 years ago

            Sure it does, you’re just flat out wrong missy. :p

            Don’t be so dense, you’ll come off as being stupid.

            • auxy
            • 7 years ago

            Really? Do you have a source for that? ( ̄□ ̄;)

            • Sam125
            • 7 years ago

            The electronics are different, the OSD is different and last I checked Apple doesn’t sell the Cinema Display anymore. So….yeah. Apple still sell the iMac yes but you can hardly say these cheap Korean monitors are rejected iMacs.

            • indeego
            • 7 years ago

            Would love a followup on that article. Number of people have complained of dead monitors in that post.

            • auxy
            • 7 years ago

            You get what you pay for, after all! ┐( ̄ー ̄)┌

            My girlfriend got one on my advice and it’s very nice, but VERY basic (one DL-DVI connector, no other inputs, and no OSD controls at all — just a very simplistic brightness control and no other controls), and it does have some issues — the backlighting is rather inconsistent. It’s nothing you’ll usually notice during use, but on a white screen (like an empty browser window) it’s readily apparent.

            These panels were discarded for a reason! ┐(‘~`;)┌ I’m sorry if that’s an inconvenient truth for some people.

            • indeego
            • 7 years ago

            I do believe I’m talking to someone actually younger than my kids. It’s happened.

            • auxy
            • 7 years ago

            Who, me? I’m 22. 23 in May. (•‿•)

            • indeego
            • 7 years ago

            Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ OK Gerbil.

            • auxy
            • 7 years ago

            Oohh! Pretty butterfly! ヽ(*・ω・)σ

            Saved!

            • indeego
            • 7 years ago

            Lady, it’s two Gerbils kissing a carrot stick with an umlaut floating above. Rorschach is disappoint!

            • auxy
            • 7 years ago

            ヘ(。□°)ヘ

            • shaq_mobile
            • 7 years ago

            i have to say, i do love all the ascii art she has.

      • ULYXX
      • 7 years ago

      Ah thanks for the flashback. I remember when she had the most advance lady lumps in the blue jeans at the time. <3 <3 <3

    • JohnC
    • 7 years ago

    Yea, I’ve been slowly playing it for a few days… The gameplay is pretty basic and not very challenging (mostly due to cloak ability and not very smart AI) , but the game is still fun to play and the graphics effects are very well-done… Making my GTX680 really struggle at max settings. Can’t wait for teh EVGA Titan SC that I’ve ordered – should finally arrive next week!

    • Meadows
    • 7 years ago

    Speaking of graphics, the last (7th) screenshot has the most ridiculous texture rip I’ve ever seen in the past 10 years. (Look at the vines on the right side of the screen, right above the HUD.)

      • GrimDanfango
      • 7 years ago

      Looks like camera near-clipping-distance artefacts, not texture problems. Dunno why the clipping distances seem to have to be pushed further than the gun… maybe it looks worse if the leaves intersect the gun.

        • Meadows
        • 7 years ago

        Nonsense. That would imply there are two layers of leaves, and one is clipped while the other is not. What kind of sense does that make?

          • GrimDanfango
          • 7 years ago

          One is further back than the other? Makes perfect sense to me – they’re alpha-mapped, and they layer up a few levels of them to give the feeling of parallax leaves-behind-leaves when you move past them.

          Then again, on closer inspection, I can’t tell what’s going on, there are deeper layers that are consistent above and below that line, but at the surface there appear to be clipped leaves both above and below the line.
          Maybe two different planes ended up intersecting through each other…
          …I give up, could be anything 😛

            • GrimDanfango
            • 7 years ago

            Okay, I think you may be right…

            There *are* two layers of leaves, but the near layer has a discontinuity. No camera clipping.

            Someone was sloppy with their UVs 🙂

            • auxy
            • 7 years ago

            You wanna see some sloppy UV mapping, play any Bethesda game ever.(´ー`)

            I love the games, but WOW. You can see a considerable improvement in objective visual quality if you just get one of the UV map fix “mods”. (Really a patch, isn’t it?)

            • GrimDanfango
            • 7 years ago

            Aw man, someone gave me an opening to rant about Bethesda games and I missed it!

            Better late than never I guess.

            There’s nothing about Bethesda games that isn’t sloppy. They follow the “throw enough artists at it, and hope that a few of them stick” school of visual design (and substitute “artist” for “programmer” on the game engine/mechanics side)

            They don’t suck as bad as Call of Duty games… at least Bethesda *attempts* to do something interesting. I do at least give every Bethesda game a good few hours try-out before I vow never to play it again.

          • Sam125
          • 7 years ago

          Yeah, that’s not correct. That’s just plain ‘ol texture clipping which shouldn’t really be a problem when actually playing the game versus looking at a static screenshot (But it should probably be fixed anyway).

      • Celess
      • 7 years ago

      Looks to me like texure coordinates set incorrectly on a surface, and its not repeating correctly or an edge case in the algo. The angle of the “clip” seems to follow the geometry not the front view plane.

      Also if you hold somthing streight up against the screen you can see that the crease isn’t just one line, its at least two.

      • ULYXX
      • 7 years ago

      No sale for me now!

    • GrimDanfango
    • 7 years ago

    The problem is, the idea that visuals aren’t everything has become twisted over time to the point where people are actively critical of good visuals. It’s like a red flag to home-in on and nitpick every other flaw a game has.

    Visuals are a vitally important element to almost all games. In some cases that equates to a pursuit of photorealism, and in other cases it equates to an entirely different visual design focus.

    There’s absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with the pursuit of photorealism in games. The only accusation that can sometimes be levied is that developers ofter commit too large a proportion of their resources to that one element.

    Crysis does tend to fall into that category – if they could balance the groundbreaking advances in visuals with groundbreaking advances in dynamic interaction, narrative, and so-on, we’d really be looking at something special. To be honest, if they could just keep those elements above-average across the entire board, it’d result in something pretty mind-blowing. As it stands, they always manage to slip up in one or two key areas, usually narrative and dialogue.

    That said, I find I’m just as able to enjoy a Crytek game as I am a game on the flip-side of the creative-coin – the “amazing groundbreaking gameplay, if you ignore the dodgy graphics/interface”

    The ones that I really have no time for are the ones that peddle consistent soulless blockbuster mediocrity across all areas – the Call-of-Duty-realm. I’d far sooner play a fatally-flawed game than a consistently average one.

      • nanoflower
      • 7 years ago

      But haven’t many of the complaints about Crysis been about the visuals coming at such a high price in terms of the hardware needed to run it? So it isn’t really a complaint about Crytek spending time on the visuals but that the end result felt like they were putting so much into the game in order to show what the engine was capable of.

    • Sam125
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]And yes, I'm using high-end hardware, of course: dual Radeon HD 7970s on one rig and a GeForce GTX Titan on the other, both attached to a four-megapixel 30" monitor. Job perk, you know.[/quote<] That's quite a nice job perk. :p But yeah, the game does look amazing like everyone already knew it would. I guess it's just really cool just how amazing the game's visuals are though. I think the tradeoff between visuals and gameplay is largely due to development costs. Hiring more people to raise both visual and gaming quality makes the game overall more expensive. So when you're working on a budget yes there is almost a 1 to 1 tradeoff between the two unless you have an "engineer" who knows how to do more with less that's kind of a fact of life. Also, I totally agree and that I'm also tired of all the low-IQ debates on the internet on VQ vs GP. 😉

      • nanoflower
      • 7 years ago

      That seems to be a poor choice. If comes down to a matter of money I would think concentrating on game play would be the better choice, but honestly.. I don’t think that happens that often. It’s just that the people involved in the game play side either aren’t being pushed to make a great game or they can’t make one. I don’t think you need that many people to get great game play, but you do need some very good people on the team to accomplish the task. While on a big game you will need quite a few talented artists to be able to deliver the great visuals (plus an engine to display those visuals.)

        • Sam125
        • 7 years ago

        I think it’s ultimately a matter of what sells. Developers of an established IP franchise don’t want to take risks and make drastic changes to a series and risk releasing a flop (not to mention losing a lot of money and risking reputations). So you’re left with smaller dev studios who’re willing to take a chance on “unproven” concepts because they don’t have multimillion dollar bankrolls and huge sales quotas to meet. So the big players are pretty much necessarily conservative while the smaller players can take that chance and if they fail, they can just dust themselves off and try again. It’s not really a big secret and it’s pretty much a universal fact. Besides, I’m sure anyone in the industry would tell you the same.

        Although if you accept that then you run into the problem of being “too big to fail”, “lending false hope” and other such nonsense. But you have to take the good with the bad if you’re willing to accept such a premise. lol :p

    • flip-mode
    • 7 years ago

    Summary of Scott’s comments: This game is the best looking game ever <no word on game play>.

      • Cyril
      • 7 years ago

      You mean besides…

      [quote<]Even if Crytek has too closely answered, you know, the call of duty when it comes to gameplay and storylines, they have undoubtedly achieved something momentous in Crysis 3.[/quote<] ...and... [quote<][i<]Crysis 3[/i<]'s core conceit, that you're stealthily hunting down bad guys while navigating through this incredibly rich environment, works well [i<]because[/i<] of the stellar visuals, sound, and physics.[/quote<] Either way, I think you might be missing the point of Scott's post. 😉

        • flip-mode
        • 7 years ago

        No, I read those parts. I think that constitutes a minimal “shout out” to game play commentary.

        • indeego
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<] Perhaps we've scanned through too many low-IQ forum arguments about visual quality versus gameplay, as if the two things were somehow part of an engineering tradeoff, where more of one equals less of the other.[/quote<] And yet he offers no High IQ equivalent argument in this case. The game is almost universally panned as pretty "meh" aside from the graphics. Eye-candy doesn't make a game. Far Cry 2 was a gorgeous game on its release, and dull as hell after a few hours in. Just call it pretty, but don't apply it to the entire game as a masterpiece.

          • Damage
          • 7 years ago

          Seems to me simply asserting that the “visuals vs. gameplay tradeoff” concept is a false dichotomy and asking the reader to think about it for a nanosecond should suffice in this case, as long as the reader is familiar with different sorts of games.

          If not, we already have a nice articulation of a more sophisticated view here in this thread:

          [url<]https://techreport.com/blog/24434/those-next-gen-games-yeah-one-just-arrived?post=712644[/url<]

            • nanoflower
            • 7 years ago

            I think everyone understands that there really isn’t (or doesn’t have to be) a tradeoff between a game having great visuals or great game play. However it seems that we see many companies pushing their graphics because that is what makes their game special. If a game has great game play (both in terms of what you have to do and in terms of character development) the graphics don’t matter as much.

            That does not mean that gamers wouldn’t love to have both but game play is the most important and it seems to be something that Crytek didn’t spend enough time on from what I’ve read in most reviews. They all admit the game is stunning, but they found it lacking in various ways. I found fewer complaints about game play and gamer involvement in Rage but still quite a few comments about how great it looked. So it is possible to provide both good (even great) game play and graphics.

            • flip-mode
            • 7 years ago

            It’s just kinda curious that on the one hand you express that it’s a false dichotomy but on the other hand you evaluate the game totally on the basis of the wonderful graphics, and how those graphics add to the immersion, but you don’t speak to the game play at all. Your whole recommendation for getting the game is for the good graphics, not for both good graphics and good game play. You’ve spoken to one half of the false dichotomy, but not the other, and that’s a little ironic.

            Edit: but those images are so beautiful it’s tempting to get the game just to do a walk through, regardless of good game play or not.

            • Damage
            • 7 years ago

            If the dichotomy is false, there is no point in continuing to think in those terms. I think it would be odd to deny the validity of thinking in that way and then continue down that path like you seem to demand.

            What I said in the article attempted to resolve the tension between gameplay and visuals, which is what I think the game has done: “Crysis 3’s core conceit, that you’re stealthily hunting down bad guys while navigating through this incredibly rich environment, works well *because* of the stellar visuals, sound, and physics.”

            In other words, Crysis 3 succeeds for me because it all works together. I think it’s incredibly cool to stalk eye-deep and cloaked through a shallow pool of utterly real-looking water, creep up on a Cell soldier like some bad-ass hunter, nock an arrow and take him down almost soundlessly, and then melt back under the waves to replenish your energy out of sight, so you can cloak again for the next kill. Everything you see and hear as you do so see seems ridiculously “real,” or solid and believable, if not utterly realistic. If it didn’t, or if it weren’t so good, the experience wouldn’t be as compelling as it is. Crysis 3 gives you the opportunity to play that kind of scenario many times in different environments with an interesting mix of weapons and tools.

            If I put on my critic’s hat and asked whether this game moves the FPS genre forward, whether its plot and dialogue were engrossing and believable, whether it avoided some of the on-rails excesses of CoD-style scripted shooters, whether I liked it as well as my open-world favorites like Boderlands 1 and 2… well, I’d have to be honest and say “no.”

            But I happen to like shooters, and Crytek has gotten the basics right. You get into the action right away, without the frustratingly long and boring opening to Crysis 2. The missions involve navigating through some relatively large areas in places, and I’ve found some of them to be really challenging to complete, keeping me engrossed. Even the dialog and voice acting are better than most games, even if they’re B-movie grade. Heck, I think the storytelling and facial animation “acting” are a grade above most Hollywood action films, which have literally lost the plot entirely.

            Guilty pleasure? Maybe, if you’re willing to admit guilt into the question of what video games you enjoy. Seems weird to me to do so, though. I’m just having fun, and the visuals, physics, and sound contribute immensely to that experience.

            • flip-mode
            • 7 years ago

            Dunno. I’d love to raise this above a “low IQ” conversation. I’m not ascribing to one view or the other at the moment, I’m just asking questions and poking holes. It is certainly the case that it does not have to be one or the other, but it is also the case that it easily can be. Yes? No? So perhaps it’s not a dichotomy, but it’s a real risk.

            Personally, I love beautiful graphics. I thought the original Crysis had both great playability and great graphics. I thought the original Far Cry had both in spades. I played that game probably 5 times. I played Crysis 2 or 3 times.

            Bioshock was a fantastic game the first time through, but not replayable for me. But the first time was amazing, truly amazing, as a game playing experience. And yet, zero replayability *for me*. At the same time, the graphics were quite fine as far as I was concerned.

            The other thing is that, for me, graphics don’t have to be all about realism. They just have to be exciting and enticing and engaging.

            I agree there is no absolute dichotomy, but I also think that there is a strong tendency for developers to deliver very, very flat game play. Especially in the age of multiplayer and great graphics.

            That being said, I essentially quit games a year ago. What they provide is no longer something I seek. It’s probably getting to the point that I have no business commenting on the matter.

    • bthylafh
    • 7 years ago

    Those people are right in uncanny-valley territory. The man’s irises aren’t quite right, but the rest… wow.

    • NeelyCam
    • 7 years ago

    Those images are pretty stunning. I still remember the movie Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within… I thought that was jaw-dropping. And it’s clearly nothing compared to what is now possible with home PCs.

      • kvndoom
      • 7 years ago

      eek, I try to forget that movie. It was more of a tech demo than great cinema. I just watched Tintin (2012) earlier this year, and even though it didn’t go for “realistic” characters, it felt way more alive and easy to watch. I remember having to remind myself that it was animation at times.

      …my subjective opinion of course. 🙂

        • sschaem
        • 7 years ago

        It was a weird movie, but I like it better then Tintin.

        But I found Tintin graphics astounding (much better then final Fantasy)

        I wonder how many ‘watts’ both movie took to render 🙂

          • Darkmage
          • 7 years ago

          That’s understandable. They’re aimed at different audiences and you probably fit into the FF audience more than TinTin.

          Come to think of it, I have both movies available to me now… I should watch ’em back to back and cheer myself up with the progress we’ve made across the years.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      You need to watch the movie again. The movie lost some of its wow factor. but Crytek still got 1 or 2 version to go.

        • travbrad
        • 7 years ago

        I have the same thing almost any time I go back to play an old game. I remember being blown away when I originally played them, but when I go back it’s like Minecraft graphics.

        The 2D era games which preceded those early 3D games have actually aged a lot better IMO.

          • Suspenders
          • 7 years ago

          I agree. I still play Caesar 3 and from time to time, and I think it has aged better than the 3d stuff from a similar vintage.

          Similarly, I think the first Kohan game has aged better than it’s (3d) sequel.

    • StuG
    • 7 years ago

    Might have to pick this up!

    • kvndoom
    • 7 years ago

    Wow… almost, ALMOST at the point of indistinguishable rendering. Can’t wait to see where we are in 5 or 10 years.

      • designerfx
      • 7 years ago

      you mean 15 or 20, sadly. Mostly because sony probably wants to milk the PS4 for at least an entire generation.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This