Bowsplosion: Crysis 3′s Campaign Goes Very, Very Loud

By Nathan Grayson on November 15th, 2012 at 1:00 pm.

Argh, you got flecks of rock right in my eye scales.

After watching six solid minutes of Crysis 3‘s “The Fields” campaign mission, I can pretty safely say that I don’t play Crysis like Crytek plays Crysis. I tend to spend most of my time invisible, skulking and striking with my trusty shotgun. Which might sound like the most counterproductive thing since weight-loss soda, but there’s nothing else quite like super-speed sprinting away, re-cloaking, and slowly but surely picking off increasingly confused baddies one-by-one. In this video, however, Crytek takes a much more, er, forward approach.

If the video is anything to go by, my playthrough of Crysis 3 will be the tale of one man who really, really, really just wants to stop and admire the exceedingly pretty grass, but pesky everything keeps getting in his way by exploding all the darn time. That said, the outdoor area looked pretty open (not to mention kind of STALKER-ish), so perhaps I’ll be able to take my time and approach the situation as I see fit.

Then again, all those Cell artillery structures seem like a pretty convenient way of railroading players with a not-so-invisible wall of explosions, so it’s tough to say. Admittedly, I kind of dug Crysis 2′s mixture of scripted precision and pseudo-openness, but I definitely preferred the original Crysis’ “here’s an island, go nuts” approach over it.

In other news, hey, Psycho’s back! And he’s not wearing a nanosuit for some reason. Maybe that means Prophet will be able to find a way to… wait, why I am discussing Crysis 3′s story? Huh, that was weird. But anyway, did you see all those crazy exploding arrows? No other game’s ever done that.

, , .

68 Comments »

  1. dE says:

    This is kinda not what I meant, when I asked for bigger guns.

  2. Groove says:

    They gave people free energy, then started charging for that energy, then moved them into labour camps to service their debts.

    WHAT. We’ve moved beyond B-movie writing here, even vagueness and sci-fi technobabble would be better.

    • Pop says:

      Gotta watch out for those energy pimps. First they hook you on the free stuff, and before you know it, you’re up to your eyeballs in debt, selling your grandma in a volunteer camp.

    • Bingo Bango says:

      No, no. He says they find a way of PRODUCING energy for free (and so getting maximum profit margins, presumably). They then steadily hike the prices up.

      • Corrupt_Tiki says:

        Thank you bingo, yeah they said something about producing it for free, establishing a monopoly, and basically ruining everyones shit.
        Pretty much any CEOs wet dream.
        Doesn’t really matter at any rate, I don’t play crysis for the story.

        • hatseflats says:

          The idea displays a worrying lack of understanding of basic economics.

          Energy production is already characterised by ever-increasing economies of scale. This means that a natural monopoly is formed in this sector: the biggest company generates electricity cheaper than its competitors, can therefore outcompete them and gain marketshare and produce even cheaper, which means it can outcompete even more competitors. The result is a monopoly position for one company, unless the government intervenes. In some cases the government tries to capture the monopoly surplus by selling the monopoly position, or it tries to generate artificial competition by creating a set of rules to prevent one company from becoming a monopolist.

          This means that A. The current situation already creates (the potential to) the described situation of a monopolist without requiring the bullshit of “free energy” and B. The consequence of that situation is obviously not “the enslavement of mankind” since we’ve had such monopolists for quite a while without the enslavement bit.

          The reason is, of course, that a monopolist can never increase prices by too much, for even if there are no competitors, it still has to compete with potential entrants to the market. If Crysis energy company indeed raised prices that high, new companies could enter the market and supply energy at lower cost. Or people could switch to generating their own energy.

          • Ginga121 says:

            I like shooting things and watching pretty explosions in a pretty world! Do I need basic economics for this?

          • boniek says:

            If this is your understanding of economics then I feel sorry for you.

          • tormeh says:

            Not really sure about what they meant by the story intro but I think the point was that Cell offers energy for free, not because they can make it for free but to “sign people up,” that is get names and start a government-like system fit for controlling a populace, recruit soldiers etc. Then Cell increases the prices beyond reasonable so that they’ll have a justification for enslaving people.

            As for competitors, I think Cell is the kind of company that competes on competitor CEO assassination rate, not price.

            It’s hard to believe the story is as bad as you guys suggest, I choose to fill out the blanks with reasonable stuff instead of assuming they’re idiots.

      • Groove says:

        You’re right, but on the other hand that doesn’t stop it being stupid.

        It’s beyond ridiculous to suggest that somewhere between prices rising above the level of old energy and spending so much on power that you’ve bankrupted the entire world that people wouldn’t have found a solution.

        Going back to old energy sources is the most obvious solution; stopping using electricity is a much more extreme solution (compared to selling yourself into slavery it doesn’t look so bad). Between those you’ve got Governments either siezing the magic power plants or just ejecting their people from the country.

      • Premium User Badge

        Gap Gen says:

        The current economic paradigm has wages not rising in real terms for years, as large companies control larger parts of the economy. The camps bit is stupid, though, but I guess you have to find an unambiguously bad antagonist somehow.

    • Bhazor says:

      Crysis 2 had a pretty good story. Well, for a shooter anyway.
      Certainly better than any modern warfare game’s unpleasent xenophobia.

      • MrLebanon says:

        GET THE TERRORIZORS BEFORE THEY TERRORIZE US!

      • Xocrates says:

        All I recall of Crysis 2 plot was that it was complete and utter nonsense.

        If that ranks as “pretty good” among shooters, then I’m damn glad I play so few of them.

        • Premium User Badge

          LTK says:

          I don’t seem to remember anything from the plot of Crysis 2 other than something about becoming one with the suit. The plot mustn’t have been very remarkable, then.

      • Marik Bentusi says:

        It had a few nice moments like you found out you’re a dead man walking or Hargreave monologue over immortality, but story-wise it was little more than “aliens invade what do”. It still had more character than the original’s bland pile of funny accents, Koreans and Radiation Gives You Superpowers nukes tho, so it’s still an upgrade in my opinion.

        Number three seems to be a bit too eager to go back to Clancy-esque TANGO DOWN spunkgargleweewee, tho some of the backstory hints at some more of C2′s neat little moments.

      • alilsneaky says:

        Pick up a book, just once. To get a frame of reference.
        Any book, it can be a book from the youth section in your library.

        Hell, read the back of a shampoo bottle and it’ll be better prose than crysis 2′s story.

    • ChiefInspectorLee says:

      RIPPED from the headlines

  3. Premium User Badge

    Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

    I always knew when the end of freedom comes it would be down to the billing practices of power companies.

    • TsunamiWombat says:

      Tesla tried to warn us, but we didn’t listen.

      EDISON YOU BASTARDDDD! WHAT HAVE YOU WROUUGHHTT!

      • stupid_mcgee says:

        But there’s so many cats, dogs and elephants that he electrocuted… How could a man like that be bad?

  4. Bhazor says:

    Ha ha ha ha ha… bwa HA! Ha ha

    Dat accent.

    It’s like the Eastenders cast did Apocalypse Now.

    • subedii says:

      Yeah I have to say I found the Crysis Warhead’s Psycho far better. Wonder why they went with the change.

  5. Pop says:

    I’m really looking forward to an FPS which presents an arena where I’ve got some form of freedom to experiment with different approaches and it’s actually possible to clear a room without enemies constantly respawning.

    • GallonOfAlan says:

      It’s called ‘Far Cry’.

      • lofaszjoska says:

        Or ‘Crysis’, for that matter.
        Question: When did Crytek change the setting from “somewhat believable near-future sci-fi” to “B-movie shitfest” and pacing from ‘I’m Predator’ to ‘swarms of enemies on a conveyor’? Is Crysis 2 pretty much like this too?

        • Brun says:

          That change happened between Crysis Warhead and Crysis 2.

          I still don’t get why they didn’t continue the Nomad plot that had already been established in the original Crysis – the only explanation I keep coming back to is that Crysis 2 was their first game on a console and they didn’t want console scrubs throwing a hissy fit when they don’t know what’s going on.

          Whatever, Yerli is an immature dick with a Napoleon complex. He lost my respect a long time ago, and since he’s convinced himself that the future of Crytek is free-to-play I’m eagerly looking forward to watching them crash and burn.

          • fooga44 says:

            “I still don’t get why they didn’t continue the Nomad plot…”

            Crytek is a developer that designs according to market trends they look at other games and copy, they have no passion for making a game THEY want to play. They look at trends and try to design a game they think others might like, hence their games really don’t feel like they have any passion or direction behind them.

        • Marik Bentusi says:

          IMO C1 was the hilarious B-movie with annoying aliens, hammy accents, What Measure Is A Non-American token brown mooks, and hilarious “Radiation Gives You Superpowers” nukes.

          C2 stripped a lot of that alien business away (for better or for worse), was in a much more grounded location, and thus overall was much more on the “hard” side of a scifi scale than hover squids freezegunning exotic Korean islands in the ground. Plus it put a tiny spin on the superhero trope with the “dead man walking” business and actually bothered characterizing some people beyond their funny accents. The conspiracy nut professor with pet squids, Leeroy Jenkins’ alcoholic undercover agent daughter come and the immortal genius falling from his path of the hero because of how detached he has become from reality come to mind.

    • woodsey says:

      Crysis 2 used the old endlessly respawning guards trick.

      • bitbot says:

        That can’t be true because I remember clearing each area of enemies.

        • KenTWOu says:

          Unfortunately Crysis 2 has few levels with unlimited spawn points. For example, this is one of them from Sudden Impact level.

  6. Corrupt_Tiki says:

    Can they promise it won’t make my computer run backwards again? Like the last two.

    • EPICTHEFAIL says:

      CE3 is actually quite smooth–my aging shitbox can run Mechwarrior online at a reasonable framerate, and that`s still in beta. As long as they don`t do something really stupid with it, it should work fine even on a midrange rig.

  7. Bigmouth Strikes Again says:

    I couldn’t see half the enemies s\he was shooting. But maybe I can use my typical cowardly approach to games: (Monty Python’s voices): “Run away! Run away!”, with the occasional stop to enjoy the scenery.

  8. DaftPunk says:

    That aint Psycho i know…his voice is totally different and his face o.O Maybe he become alcoholic :|

    • KingCathcart says:

      Yes, not only have they changed the voice actor from Jason Statham sound-alike Sean Chapman to a Danny Dyer sound-alike, they also appear to have changed the character model to Minty from East Enders.

    • DanDeath says:

      Might just be a place holder, hopefully. As it says in the video it’s alpha, and voice acting is the last thing they will be worrying about.

  9. subedii says:

    Then again, all those Cell artillery structures seem like a pretty convenient way of railroading players with a not-so-invisible wall of explosions, so it’s tough to say. Admittedly, I kind of dug Crysis 2′s mixture of scripted precision and pseudo-openness, but I definitely preferred the original Crysis’ “here’s an island, go nuts” approach over it.

    So did I. Which is why I was disappointed when the series decided to go in the opposite direction to the unique strengths of the original, and instead try to follow a line that hewed a bit closer to CoD.

    I could think of a few ways to improve on Crysis 1′s gameplay. It’s a series that has been crying out for a two player co-op mode since the very first game. And it’s something that personally, I feel would give the game a much more memorable multiplayer mode than trying to riff off of MW4′s unlock system, whilst sticking closer to the unique style that the game had. Heck even the original game’s multiplayer was something more interesting, since it was riffing off of Battlefield instead.

    • Bhazor says:

      Crysis 1 multiplayer was spectacular and now completely forgotten.
      Some of my absolute multiplayer highlights happened there. Like creeping up to the enemy base, lying invisible in the grass slowly crawling up to check the wall for snipers when suddenly tank tracks appear in my peripherals and a tank rolls right over me. I jump up and look around to see the whole enemy team surrounding me. Two tanks, a dozen soldiers, my piss is everywhere.

      Still invisible and with just enough juice left to crouch walk into a small bush. Brushing shoulders with the enemy, I hear various sounds of Suits powering up and weapons changing as everyone gets the heebie jeebies of bumping into an invisible man.

      Amazing to think you could have a multiplayer shooter without bullshit unlocks isn’t it?

      • subedii says:

        Very first multiplayer match I joined I still remember this, I came out of a spawn bunker and off in the distance I saw a jeep barreling straight towards our position intent on taking it over.

        So I switched to scope, took aim, and blew out one of its tyres. The driver panicked and screeched to a halt, and if anyone was going to be attacking the bunker now, it was going to be exposed and on foot.

        Awesome stuff.

      • DaftPunk says:

        Something similar hapened to me in Battlefield 2 whille playing as Sniper,which of course had really nice ghillie suit. So i was hiding in a high grass,slowly mowing across the field when suddenly 4-5 enemies appeared and one APC,i was like OMG i’m so going to die right now but they didn’t noticed me so i moved away behind a building and took two of them down,then run away. Epic moments in that game,epic!

    • Jamesworkshop says:

      that’s still better than the ice, ship and vtol mission levels

  10. woodsey says:

    As much as Crysis was Roland Emmerich-esque B-Movie end of the world fluff, I wish they hadn’t retconned the crap out of it in the second (which had a plot pulled straight from a fever dream). From from what I’ve heard it sounds like they’re doing the same thing again with this, although to a lesser extent.

    And as much as Nomad was a barely-there character, it would be nice if his/our efforts in the first game where in the slightest bit acknowledged. It did end on a bloody cliffhanger, after all.

    Still, I doubt I’ll pick this up straight away anyway. It’s feigning openness by the looks of it, and the Nanosuit is still the neutered piece of shit from the second, not the one that actually made a difference from the first and Warhead.

  11. smeaa mario says:

    Further improved graphical prowess: check

    Now the only thing I would love to have in the game is elimination of infinite baddie shootdown, which you had to do all the time in the first sequel until you somehow scaled a certain part of the map and reached another one.

    I mean we all like to splash some brains around and unleash a hell of bullets onto them bad guys but infinite enemy spawn was stupid at best.

  12. Discopanda says:

    GIT OUT OF HERE, STALKER

  13. Raymond Saint says:

    There’s no cheaper thing than exploding barrels. Complete lack of taste.

  14. HisMastersVoice says:

    If that’s Psycho I think it would have been better had they killed him off screen. I fear for poor Nomad.

    It also appears your nano-suit is the only one in operation. Or maybe Psycho isn’t cool enough to get his own…

  15. Ideas says:

    I wish they would focus on adding new nanosuit powers. They got rid of super speed and made all of the super strength stuff way worse in Crysis 2.

    Instead they just add this dumb bow and pretend like it’s a new gameplay mechanic even though it’s just another gun. OH COOL YOU CAN SHOOT ELECTRIC ARROWS AT A PUDDLE AND SHOCK DUDES WHOA NEVER SEEN THAT BEFORE SO COOL

    Crysis 2 was good but I preferred Crysis 1 so much more. Crysis 2 felt more like a CoD clone that was themed like Crysis 1 than an actual sequel to Crysis.

    Crysis 3 looks like it will probably be better than Crysis 2, but I’m just not that excited because it looks like 95% the same game. Hopefully they will improve the AI at least.

  16. Hunchback says:

    It always makes me a bit sick to see a demo video of an awesomely high-tech bleeding edge whatever uber-graphics FIRST PERSON SHOOTER, executed on a … FUCKING CONSOLE.

    Who the fuck plays FPS on consoles anyway? How can one possibly play with any reasonable skill without a mouse? Oh wait, you can’t, that’s why all FPS pro-play is done on PC.

    Sry for the bitterness and angst, but it makes me sick. We don’t see videos of Tekken 10 played on a PC. We don’t even GET Tekken 10 on PC, even though there’s absolutely no problem to plug a pad in a PC and beat away… :S

    P.S. I might be mistaken and the demo could be played on a PC with someone using an extremely low-sensitivity mouse and really smooooth linear movements of their hand.
    Still, my point stands, since i’ve seen other videos of FPS being filmed on consoles.

    • subedii says:

      Who the fuck plays FPS on consoles anyway?

      Uhhm, most people on the planet that play FPS’s?

      I mean the audience for most “Modern Military Shooters” is basically console based as it is.

    • BrendanJB says:

      “Who the fuck plays FPS on consoles anyway?”

      The millions and millions and millions of people who enjoy the likes of the Halo, COD, Killzone, Resistance, Borderlands, and Bioshock series on 360 and Ps3? Indeed there is entire world of gaming beyond your liquid nitrogen cooled, atomic powered, super computer.

      Yes, you get an unparalleled amount of control with a keyboard and mouse, but being an ignorant, arrogant, elitist about it makes you far more annoying than watching a video of gamepad controlled gameplay.

      • Hunchback says:

        Next on consoles – RTS!
        (Actually there used to be Dune for Sega, and it was maddening to play)

        There might be a whole world of millions of people playing games not suitable for consoles, on consoles, but that doesn’t make it any less wrong. It’s not a question about being elitist or not…

        • lordcooper says:

          Psst, you can use a keyboard and mouse with a console. You can also use a pad on a PC. I do both pretty frequently. Get the fuck over yourself.

        • Totally heterosexual says:

          HAVING FUN IS WRONG

        • BrendanJB says:

          “It’s not a question about being elitist or not…”

          Yes. Yes it is. As someone who has been playing fps games for over 20 years – starting out on PC and moving to console – using a twinstick setup to control a character in first person is not only a viable option, it’s a rather comfortable option, too. 90% of my gaming is done on PC, but on the occasion I go to my friends place and smash some Halo or similar, I have no less fun than if I’m pulling off 360 mid-air spinfuser kills in Tribes 2.

          Just because you personally do not get the amount of control over your avatar that you would like, does not mean that the entire genre is “not suitable for consoles”; that is known as arrogance and elitism.

      • El_Emmental says:

        “but being an ignorant, arrogant, elitist”

        I think you’re missing his point here, he’s not saying console are lesser platforms, he says First Person Shooter are best played on a PC, like Fighting games are best played with a stick (or at least a gamepad).

        In my opinion, it heavily depends on the gameplay. Borderlands play very nicely on consoles, same with Halo, while games like Crysis don’t play that smoothly with gamepads. They’re enjoyable, but a lot of its potential is lost with gamepad control.

        The suit powers requires very fast coordinations and simultaneous movement+aiming, something that is much more difficult on a gamepad (that’s why there isn’t a Tribes: Ascend console version, or the Q3A genre never took off on consoles).

        When you need to cloak, sprint-jump-crouch-sprint-jump through a complex obstacles-ridden path, then immediately power-jump power-smash disturb a soldier while shooting another one, you need a keyboad+mouse to pull that.

        Having to wait on joystick turning speed and lesser degree of accuracy* is an issue with *that* kind of gameplay.

        * What I meant:
        1) Our thumbs, when holding a joystick (<= pay attention to that information), can move (at max, with a very tall stick) ~10 centimeters (5 cm on each sides) on the left-right axis, and ~8 (4 cm on each sides) centimers on the up-down axis.

        On PS3/Xbox360 controllers the amplitude is actually lower, 6-8 centimeters on the left-right axis, 6 centimeters on the up-down axis.

        Meanwhile, the mouse control use ~10 centimeters amplitude on the left-right and the up-down axis.

        It’s even higher with lower sensitivity settings (nb: gaming mouses allow sensitivity tweaking on the fly, using buttons on the mouse itself) .

        The human body, its muscles and nerves, and the human brain, have limits. If you’re (almost) doubling the “resolution” of your movements, your inevitable inaccuracies will much less corrupt the movement you’re trying to make.

        2) Mouse is also working on a plane flat regular surface, allowing the arm, wrist and hands to rest on it without affecting the desired movement/position. On controllers' joystick, the curved nature of the joystick base and the orbiting off-center thumb-joystick interaction do not allow the player to vertically rest as much as (s)he would. Also, current controllers also features a joystick click, making vertical rest a potential issue.

        3) The mini-joysticks of the current console generation are controlled by a single thumb (nb: the N64 joystick could be held with the thumb and index, if you had big hands). Meanwhile, the mouse mouvements are controlled by the thumb, ring finger and little finger (the index and middle fingers being used for the clicks).
        You can also hold the mouse closer to your hand, to also use your palm to make even more accurate (but slower) movements.

        These facts (still fully debatable) don't make mouse "better" (ha ha, like if there was an universal "better"), it doesn't make controllers less comfortable or less adapted to playing video games. It just means gamepad with mini-joysticks are not fitted for the same type of gameplays as the keyboard+mouse ones. I have both a gamepad and KB+M on my desk for that.

        Borderlands' gameplay feels great on console because they designed and built it with the console controls in mind.

        On the other hand, the Crysis Suit design, and its inherent gameplays, was designed with PC controls in mind. Crytek various attemps at making it more convenient with gamepad controls never really shined so far, the console controls still feel limited.

        They already bastardized the Suit powers in Crysis 2, making them pretty much automatic (passive Power mode and such), losing a lot of potential on the way, and it’s still not feeling that smooth. It's a shame because a PC-Crysis would be great, giving back full controls to the player.

        And don't get me wrong, a Console-Crysis would be excellent too, but vastly different: automatic powers, with an AI combining various powers (contextual powers), so the player would focus on acting in a way to trigger the right powers.

        The levels and enemies would be set in a way so these different powers would be usable (say an enemy would be vulnerable to at least 2 combined-powers), the player having to find out which one can be done here (and which one (s)he prefers), unlike the PC-Crysis where the player would have to figure out which powers he has to combine.

        Crytek is trying to do both, and never go beyond the "it's okay" level of gameplay quality.

        But we all know that "it’s okay" on PC+console sells more than "OMG CULT" on PC or consoles.

        And since risk aversion rules the entire video game industry, "better safe than sorry" it is, so Crysis *has* to be consoles+PC game. What a shame.

    • derbefrier says:

      You really take this whole pc master race thing way to seriously. Its just a controller calm dowm,take deep breaths, and maybe you’ll realize how trivial it is to complain about this. Everyone knows a M&KB is superior in a FPS we don’t need you screaming and acting a fool to point that out.

    • Tinman says:

      Well, I actually agree with this guy. Why don’t we see trailers/gameplay footage of FPS games on PC anymore? It seems like all footage that is ever recorded is done on the console version, which makes the gameplay look slow and unrealistic to me. I don’t aim like the user does with a controller on keyboard and mouse. Not even IRL do you aim a gun like that, integrating slowly over time until your crosshair/ironsights are over your target. IMO it looks stupid, always has and is one of the reasons I don’t play FPS on a console.

      Then there is the fact that FPS design has suffered because of the popularity of controller based aiming. You can’t aim as fast, so FPS games are slower with lower FoV and with a lack of twitch based gameplay mechanics (rocket jumping, bunny hopping, multiple weapon switching etc). Regenerating health and zero resource management (spawn with all weapons+ammo), at least in multiplayer, has become the norm. It is hard to list a single, if any, modern FPS game that has a high skill ceiling because of these degenerative gameplay designs.

      The simple fact that most console FPS games have some sort of autoaim or assist feature (on by default) is evidence enough that they should not be designed predominantly for consoles. Which they currently are.

  17. Askeladd says:

    I could point out many flaws of that video…but I want to concentrate on one single thing:

    Tactic is not required, just ignore everything and kill the ones that stand in your semi scripted path. GOOD DAY SIR!

    P.S.: Also Psycho(was that Psycho?!) shielding Nomad (in a nano-suit) from a artillery strike which is far away with his nano-suit-less body instead of shielding himself behind Nomad and the fact that those laser-foreshadowed-artillery-strikes later become magically more like little hand grenades, which require a four year old’s attention to evade, has shown me the depth of Crysis 3.
    Really, Nomad is a big baby in a high tech romper suit, so he can’t hurt himself, but others.

    • EPICTHEFAIL says:

      I think that was Prophet (the boring guy from C1 who inexplicably became a Mary Sue for no apparent reason), and I`d like to point out that Psycho somehow survived a point-blank mortar without a helmet. I`m willing to put up with a lot of things, but taking my suspension of disbelief and pissing on it is the only way to describe this level of stupidity.

    • Premium User Badge

      Gap Gen says:

      I did like that video of someone completing one of the later levels of Crysis 2 by walking past all the enemies and not firing a shot. Something about their AI that makes it difficult for them to kill you if you just act natural and sidle past.

  18. InternetBatman says:

    The game looks surprisingly boring for how pretty it is.

  19. BrendanJB says:

    Loved the first Crysis+Warhead, and very much enjoyed Crysis 2; I liked the addition of sliding and streamlining the suits abilities – apart from the super speed which lasted about 2 seconds. Gotta say this game looks extremely boring, and I do not like the fact that your weapons take up a quarter of your freaken screen! I haven’t really been interested in any of the footage I’ve seen of this game.

  20. varangian says:

    Last time I was in the Crysis universe I was fighting wibbly wobbly aliens flapping around in the sky and sometimes freezing in mid air due to a bug in their flight gear or a bug somewhere anyway. Now I’m fighting a generic evil corporation with their hordes of standard issue black armoured goons. I’m so confused, must get round to playing Crysis 2 which has been sitting neglected in my Steam library since the last sale while I’ve been exploring Skyrim, battling UFOs and so on. Though I have my doubts as to whether the episode I’ve missed can make the world of Crysis 3 in any way credible.

  21. JohnnyMaverik says:

    Eh… Far Cry 3 looks way better, they actually put this kind of tech to use by making a grand, open and visually stunning world. I wish Crytek would wake up, smell the bacon and use their amazing tech to make something that isn’t a grey shooter with at best some pockets of pseudo open wordiness (that will quickly be snatched away and replaced with the drab brown and grey interiors).