The Midlife Of Crysis – Crytek’s Third En Route?

I bet he gets really sweaty in that suit

While struggling to think up a headline pun to accompany the unsurprising news that there’s almost certainly going to be a third (well, fourth technically speaking) Crysis game, the ‘crap rhymes’ part of my imagination dredged up No Way Sis, who were at one time deemed the UK’s premier Oasis tribute act and enjoyed far too much success of their own. Even a hit single. What a terrible, terrible world this can be.

Anyway, Crysis 3. A spot of digging by Neogaf and Eurogamer’s German arm has turned up assorted hints that Crytek’s third nanosuit oddyssey is due for a reveal soon. They even found a picture of a Crysis dude with a bow and arrow. Which seems sort of incongruous to the nanosuit, but maybe the Strength mode will enable us to shoot arrows that fly for over 20 miles. EXTREME HUNTING.

The rumour-hunters even found an apparent pre-order page for Crysis 3 on Origin – $49.99 to you, boss. On top of that is a cover for Swedish mag GameReactor which seems to support the theory, and Crytek have previously hinted at an April reveal for something or other.

It’s looking more than likely, then. No doubt an American magazine will be released with a big exclusive cover feature any day now.
Surprised, I am not. Question is whether Crysis will return to semi-non-linear, man-hunting roots or continue mining the Big Fact Science Fiction Rollercoaster Adventure vein that it went flat-out for in Crysis 2. Here’s a trailer, anyway:


  1. Gap Gen says:

    I look forward to fighting a swarm of robot aliens armed with obsidian axes.

  2. Monchberter says:

    I look forward to having my expectations smashed into small pieces yet again. So much promise apparent in Crysis 2, only for it to look ridiculously generic on release with a few Mirror’s Edge pilfered ding dongs but sadly consolised.

    It didn”t help that they had that little Steam kerfuffle and went Origin exclusive (*spit*).

    Back to Crysis 1 and Warhead again for MAXIMUM PCness.

    • CaspianRoach says:

      I wouldn’t call it generic, there’s not much sandbox-y FPS games out there, the fact that it didn’t have much cutscenes and wasn’t a cover based corridor shooter made it a really fun game for me. It was awesome feeling like a high-tech hunter sneaking around and picking enemies one by one or just tearing a minigun off its place deploying maximum armor and completely thrashing the place. I haven’t played Crysis 1 but judging by the screenshots and gameplay videos, NYC is a much more interesting and varied setting to play in than a jungle island.

      • Shortwave says:

        The SP was totally solid yea, I played through it once and was right into it.
        Screaming at the monitor and all that good stuff, ha.
        A lot of people hate Cryengine 3 but it’s really quite amazing.
        Despite what anyone says, the game is beautiful and fun.
        I honestly don’t get the linear part people rave about.
        Some parts are narrowed down yea, but anything you get into a battle the area is massive.
        Going all predator is epic as hell! I think linear people just play the game linear.
        It’s just too bad the MP is totally dead because of their terrible DRM and splitting from Steam.

        The first games are just as good honestly, more or less same in my mind.
        The Mech Warrior Living Legends mod for Crysis Wars is amazing also.

        • Cinek says:

          No. The game is linear corridor shooter. Period.
          There are no places where player can CHOOSE which way to go. It’s always a straight line between two points, sometimes separating to somewhat bigger areas yet still nothing that comes even close to original Crysis.

          • jonfitt says:

            Hmm. I think the jungle gave people the impression they had more freedom than they really did. Sure they were wide corridors, but Crysis 1’s maps were still corridors fundamentally. Vertical cliffs and the sea funneled players onwards. You still had the “get to the choppa” goals without any choice in the matter.

          • CaspianRoach says:

            No. The game is not a corridor shooter. Period.
            You can choose how to traverse the area and apply different approaches. Linear as in story and level progress? Yes. Linear in terms of gameplay? No.

          • subedii says:


            If you’re describing Crysis 1 as a corridor shooter then the way you are using the term has no descriptive value anymore. There are literally no level based FPS’s that are NOT corridor shooters.

          • jonfitt says:

            Right. The term has no definitive meaning. It gets thrown around (accompanied by so many periods) with absolute authority despite the reality that the line can be drawn wherever you like. Last time I checked a corridor was about 6′ wide.
            Both games had opportunities to take different approaches to set pieces. One was more spacious than the other.
            How wide must a corridor be before it ceases to be a corridor exactly? Let’s think up a good definition so we can all start slapping our periods on statements.

          • Brun says:

            I don’t think it was just the jungle. The scale and open space are contributors to the “open-world” feel, but another huge part of that is that the levels and maps in Crysis (especially the opening levels) create the sense of a living world much like Far Cry did. That sense that the world will go on without your intervention is critical to creating a good open-world feel and it’s something that Crysis 2 distinctly lacks. I think the narrowness of the maps in Crysis 2 contribute to that – the corridor feel makes it seem like enemies are just waiting around for you to turn the next corner. Contrast that with the open maps in Crysis in which you could see soldiers talking and milling about realistically from a distance, boats patrolling the waterways, fighters on combat air patrol, etc.

          • GoodPatton says:

            @CaspianRoach: In comparison to Crysis, Crysis 2 is much more of a corridor shooter than its predecessor only because in Crysis 2 the choices we’re less varied and more obvious.

            Crysis 2 had a pretty bad reception (by me included, go back to the old C2 posts when it was released and see:) but after beating it and giving my self some time away from it, the second playthrough was much more enjoyable . I still prefer Crysis and Crysis Warhead as the enemy AI for the human troops is more enjoyable to fight I find.

            I would absolutely recommend playing the games, for a shooter fan they’re a must play in my book.

          • Premium User Badge

            Joshua says:


            There are actually quite a lot of multiple routes in a lot of the levels (yes, there are corridors in the ‘in between’ sections, but the original Crysis had those as well), its just that they are a lot harder to find now.

      • Cytrom says:

        Yeah.. you should just play crysis 1 then, or better yet, Far Cry 1. Despite that it came out in 2003 (i think) it still has pretty amazing levels, and some interesting physics based gameplay mechanics that feel fresh today (because the fps genre progressed more backwards then forward since then)

        • Monchberter says:

          I’ve got mixed feelings about Far Cry, mostly because it was so unforgiving. Brilliant, but unforgiving. At least with Crysis you could recover from a poorly judged assault. In Far Cry you’d be reloading.

          • swebjh44 says:

            link to
            Oh man, I had completely forgotten about that comic!

            Though I thought it had finished?

            Oh wow, it’s now on A New Hope.

        • jonfitt says:

          … and then stop playing when the Trigens show up and ruin the game.

          • Monchberter says:


          • Cytrom says:

            Yeah, because shooting monsters in a first person shoter is outrageous… granted it was kind of out of place, it didn’t ruin far cry in any way.

          • Werthead says:

            The Trigens were considerably less annoying than the floating aliens in CRYSIS, to be honest. And the Trigen-only areas are surprisingly few and far between on replays of the game. There’s quite a few areas in the mid and late game when the Trigens disappear altogether and you’re back fighting the (much more impressive) mercenaries for long stretches. Whilst in CRYSIS when the aliens show up, the North Koreans almost instantly disappear and never reappear as enemies again.

      • Brun says:

        You need to play Crysis 1. You say that Crysis 2 was sandboxy, but compared to Crysis 1, it wasn’t. Just as an example, in Crysis 1 you could assault an enemy position in a myriad of different ways. You could go in guns blazing, you could stealth around and assassinate people, you could hijack a boat and attack from the water, etc. It was really up to you to decide how to approach the obstacle.

        In Crysis 2 you usually had three options. One of these options was always something along the lines of “resupply,” which basically involved picking up ammo, grenades, or a new weapon and then executing one of the other two options. These options were displayed in your HUD in typical console hand-holdey fashion.

        • Zyrusticae says:

          I said elsewhere in the thread, suggesting that the suggestions given by the visor are the ONLY POSSIBLE APPROACHES is just patently wrong in every conceivable fashion.

          Really, I just don’t understand this thought process. So they say you can do this, this, and this, and your brain just shuts down and immediately assumes that those are all the possibilities available to you? You poor thing.

        • KenTWOu says:

          in Crysis 2 you could assault an enemy position in a myriad of different ways (except vehicles using). You could go in guns blazing, you could stealth around and assassinate people, etc… but you couldn’t hijack a boat and attack from the water. It was really up to you to decide how to approach the obstacle.

      • Shortwave says:

        I keep saying the same thing, ha.
        Some people are hopeless.

      • subedii says:

        Long freaking post incoming:

        If you want to know why I enjoyed Crysis 1 so much, well…

        I enjoyed Crysis because it was an awesome, free roaming action game, with massive non-linear levels that encouraged you to approach them as you saw fit. Assaulting an objective in Crysis was always a cavalcade of possibilities, and the open plan levels allowed those possibilities to come through.

        I was hooked on Crysis from the moment I played through the demo. And it wasn’t because of the visuals (although those were awesome). It was because in-between getting the demo and getting the game, I must have played through that demo six times, and each one of those playthroughs was almost completely different. Go in by stealth, or guns blazing? Shall I head for my objective by land? Maybe steal someone’s jeep and gun it straight past all the trouble? I could do that. Heck, I could snipe someone out in the sea, grab their boat, and literally bypass whole swathes of the level and meticulously designed action bubbles. And the game was totally OK with that approach, just as with any other. To date, the Harbour “Assault” level still stands for me personally, as one of the best designed FPS levels I’ve ever played. And that’s pretty much because they dump you into a massive map and say “Your objectives are here, here and here, you’ll find various resources scattered around the map, now go to it as you see fit”. I’ve lost count of how many times I replayed that level.

        Let me be clear here: Come Crysis 2, it wasn’t the graphics that killed my interest. It was them trying to turn a much larger, non-linear and open plan game into something more linear, desperately trying to appeal more to the Call of Duty crowd. John Riccitiello was pushing so hard in the marketing before release that this was going to be their Call of Duty killer it just became a joke (because we saw those sales NUMBERS! Call of Duty had huge NUMBERS! Why don’t we have those NUMBERS?! Quick, copy it some more and we might get those NUMBERS! Grief, that philosophy even invaded the multiplayer).

        It was never going to work, they were never really going to steal the CoD crowd away, and they lost my interest in the process. It’s a real pity, because I haven’t really seen since that same marriage of non-linearity in FPS level design and solid action gameplay. Other games pretend to be action movies. Crysis was a game that at its best, felt as if you were directing your own. And when you’re the one that’s involved in the events happening on-screen, and it’s not all just some scripted set piece but a makeshift plan coming together (or even falling apart), that’s something that feels really awesome.

        In some ways, Crysis was a pretty unique game. What’s sad for me is that they then took the sequel and tried to make it a more generic action game instead of playing to the original game’s strengths.

        I’m not going to lie and say this is anything other than personal preference, but at the same time, I don’t doubt that these are some of the core gameplay features that made Crysis unique and stand out from the other FPS’s. And speaking personally, if I’m the kind of person who held ‘Assault’ to be the epitome of Crysis’ level design, where was that open style of level in Crysis 2? Anywhere? In Crysis there were literally maps where you could circle entire bases, just to get into the undefended areas. In ‘Relic’ for example there’s an entire sprawling base covering a large chunk of the map, complete with MG nests, watchtowers, and dozens and dozens of soldiers. It’s a whole, meticulously designed bonanza with the intent of showing the player a thoroughly action packed time. But when I played ‘Relic’, here’s what happened:

        I snuck around the base, Solid Snaking it through the forests, making use of the concealment offered by the plants (I was actually on a no-cloak run at the time :p. Believe it or not, it’s something I recommend everyone try at least once, it was buckets of fun). Bypassed a forest patrol as they walked past without even noticing me in the brush (concealment works very well if you know how to use it). Silently took out another two-man squad. And gently dropped down into the back of the base completely unseen and without raising the alarm. I got to Dr. Rosenthal past all their defences, past this ginormous and carefully designed action set piece, and by being smart and stealthy, they didn’t even know I was there.

        So yeah. If Crysis takes me back to that, I’ll take back to Crysis. But I’ll need a demo on the level of Crysis 1’s to convince me that’s what they’re doing.

        • shaydeeadi says:

          I agree with all your points, and would add that completing as much of the first act as you can only using an oven as a weapon is a bit brilliant to play.

        • Highstorm says:

          This post is beautiful.

          I played that demo just short of 20 times through and it was still fresh when I finally got the game proper. My favorite was stealing a jeep on the beach and ramping it up off that rock outside the second camp you come to. Crash it through the ceiling of that one shed, jump out and blow the fuel tank. Boom! Then sneak around and take people out one at a time in the ensuing confusion.

          I’ve played through Crysis probably 4 or 5 times. I only played Crysis 2 a second time to unlock suit upgrades, but it quickly got dull as I realized there was little-to-no emergent gameplay, and the run felt identical to my first time through. Not a bad game, just such a let down from what the first one promised for the franchise.

        • Resurgam says:

          I bought Crysis day one because it was a fantastic game that did things differently from every other game, did it well and looked awesome at the same time. I must have completed that thing at least 6 or 7 times, and played the demo at least 20 times through.
          When Crysis 2 was announced I was unbelievably hyped up. Then they announced it for consoles… i cannot tell you how fast my hype evaporated.

          Come release and after playing the demo what do ya know?

          Crap generic linear game. Did not buy.

          Funny how that works doesn’t it Crytek?

          They were perfect as they were and you somehow made them more complicated and gave me less options in an attempt to make them simpler.
          How did you do it seriously? How the hell did they do it?

      • Smaug says:

        Aww not in a generic USA city again

      • vodka and cookies says:

        Crysis 1 was incredibly boring and a poor attempt at mashing Halo into the FarCry style gameplay the single player of Crysis 2 was better realized in every way.

        • CorruptBadger says:

          lol really, did you even play the first game, it was far cry on another level.

          Completely non-linear levels: The maps on my system with settings maxed out and tweaked ini files, take around a minute to load, because there just so sprawling, full of life and character, approachable from almost any angle I.E Charging in guns blazing, crashing through in a vehicle, stealthing about taking out guys one at a time or avoiding it completely. And crytek crafted them in such clever ways, creating options for any style of play.

          Interesting sci-fi story:Sure, aliens and “super-powers” were nothing new, but the whole america vs. korea back story, the entire mystery behind the aliens ect. where very gripping.

          Stunning graphical fidelity: When I say Cry Engine 2 out-does Cry Engine 3 in every respect, I mean it. Its a fact in essence, Cry Engine 2 was made to be an uber-powerful engine for the pc, Cry Engine 3 was made to be a “powerful” engine that a console could actually handle.

          Actual Gameplay: Stealth in Crysis 1 was very tense, it took a lot of patience but was soo rewarding. As was guns blazing, because you got the feel you were in a nano-suit, tearing up guys and just being a general bad ass.

          IMHO I only have two qualms with the game: The boss fights, and the vehicle handling, both minor things that can be easily overlooked in the big picture.

          Now looking at Crysis 2, the maps are very linear, with the only non linear options being small passage ways between areas, or simply the illusion of non linearity (being given a large area, with only one exit and entrance, such as the level that IIRC was set in Times Square).

          The story was so OTT and silly in comparison, but that is opinion and I can’t say everyone hated it.

          The graphics were also toned down, because our 7 year old consoles had to render all the game at a speed that was acceptable and even then, my 360 struggled.

          The gun play felt bad, because the armored soldiers and aliens took to many bullets, my explanation for this is artificial extension of the game, but i cant say for sure. Stealth also felt thrown out the window, because you could upgrade your suit to the point where you had enough energy to just sprint entire chunks of the level with no thought involved, or crytek forced you into a position that required shooting.

          Now tell me again that crysis 2 was a better game?

    • lunarplasma says:

      and Warface.

    • DK says:

      It certainly didn’t help that they absolutely butchered the story and retconned the aliens from Ice-wielding energy absorbing, squid-antigrav based foes that think and fight in 3 dimensions to generic walking powersuit plasma-rifle Halo wannabes.

      • Zyrusticae says:

        While I greatly enjoyed my time with Crysis 2’s single player, I absolutely have to agree with this.

        The aliens were just better-handled in the first game. Their design just made more sense, given that they were literally advanced space squids. At least they kept the tentacle motif in the structures…

        I did at least enjoy Hargreave’s musings on the aliens and their methods. ESPECIALLY their methods. Like he said, their use of a decomposing agent to break down human bodies makes a lot of sense as a way to reduce the environmental impact and dispose of the corpses in a sane manner (not that we would think it, being the victims).

        • wengart says:

          However the squids in the first game were a lot less fun to fight.

          • aethereal says:

            They were pretty easy to take on actually. So long as you used the gauss sniper rifle, a few shots would always take em down. And i think they changed the aliens because Crysis 2 was on consoles, and flying enemy aliens+console controller tends to be a bad combination

  3. Milky1985 says:

    Will this one “end” with something along the lines “now we need to go back and finish it” again, its worked for them the first 2 times!

    All that tech yet they still can’t finish the fight properly :p

  4. Lev Astov says:

    I’m not sure how I feel about using a bow in a Crysis game. On one hand, bows are pretty poor combat weapons these days, especially against aliens. On the other hand, the nanosuit would let you use something like a 1,000lb bow, which would be amusing. I’m pretty sure the result is still dumb, though.

    Also, interesting choice of trailers, Alec.

  5. MuscleHorse says:

    An arrow that flies for twenty miles and passes through hundreds of skulls, houses and small animals.

  6. CaspianRoach says:

    Wouldn’t that extra bow power just make the arrow go straight through the target dealing less damage and having a lesser impact?

  7. Anthile says:

    Every time I see those archaic weapons in futuristic settings I have to think of Darths & Droids.

    Also, you will now read Darths & Droids for the rest of the week.

  8. Robin says:


    Wrong, it should be:


  9. RedViv says:

    Activate Maximum Rambo. Although they could break the mold and Activate Maximum Katnips, but who are we kidding with that. Female FPS hero? Ha.

    • Cytrom says:

      No One Lives Forever

      • RedViv says:

        I know. Also Perfect Dark, Metroid Prime, TimeSplitters, and Left4Dead. As for the 1842 other FPS games…

        • jinxed says:

          Man, we need more games like Perfect Dark. One of the few games that can take a level made mostly of corridors and tight space and make it non-linear.

  10. squirrel says:


    Please give us back sandbox. Your Crysis 2 multiplayer isnt shining anyway.

    • Tridae says:

      Crysis 2 Multiplayer is great and I still play it often.
      My only gripe with it was that even though Crytek boasted about their awesome Sandbox Creation Tools they make it really difficult for anyone to load custom maps.

      I really hate the recent trend of selling muliplayer map DLCs whilst making community maps so hard to come by when there are actually really great tools out there to support make stuff with.

      Love the multiplayer, hate the money making.

      If Crysis 3 goes Origin Exclusive it’s a definite pirate for me, just like Mass Effect 3 (although I’m glad I did since I only played all of 15mins of that crap)

  11. N'Al says:

    I have the sudden urge to listen to Angel Dust??

    • Pointy says:

      89′ Leeds Uni. Fnm & somebody… It wasn’t Morbid angel… I think they had morbid in the name tho’
      Good gig.

      Edit : Epic tour tho’. Not Angel Dust.

  12. tossrStu says:

    And there was me thinking Gillen’s departure signalled the end of terrible bands dredged up from the arse end of Britpop appearing on RPS. What next? Gay Dad? Menswear@r? NORTHERN COCKING UPROAR? Not in my name, sirs. NOT IN MY NAME.

  13. Premium User Badge

    Bluerps says:

    In Germany, there was once an R&B group called Bro’Sis. They were also terribly successful.

  14. Brun says:

    Was pretty disappointed with Crysis 2 – the departure from the Far Cry style of open-map FPS was a mistake. Also, Nomad was a much better protagonist/player character than Alcatraz.

    • squirrel says:

      But both guys are just John Doe, how can you tell who’s better?

      • Milos says:

        One was doer than the other.

      • Milky1985 says:

        Well nomad’s armour power didn’t constant drain energy, only when he was hit. Also his hud gave him an idea of how much heltlh he had an his visor obviosly gave him something to stop the red mist of death.

        Nomad ran faster, and could move faster while armoured as well. That made him far better.

        (always wondered why they are claiming the guy from 2 is the last hope, when nomad is out there with a better suit)

        • Phantoon says:

          I didn’t play the first game, played the second, and got bored of it.

          Too much “want to be a shooter”, not enough super powers.

        • Brun says:

          Nomad’s nanosuit would have been incredibly overpowered when combined with narrow, linearized environments and (particularly) the cover mechanic in Crysis 2, which is why they had to nerf it.

          Again, poor decisions. The fact that they had to make the nanosuit – the defining “gimmick” of Crysis and arguably the franchise’s main character – less powerful to accommodate their new CoD-esque vision for the series should have told them early on that what they were doing was a mistake.

          • Zyrusticae says:

            Seriously? I have no idea what you’re going on about here.

            Yes, speed and power were nerfed. But EVERYTHING ELSE was buffed. MASSIVELY.

            Armor mode in the first Crysis? USELESS. The entire energy bar would drain in just a few hits. In Crysis 2? You can stand there and tank incoming fire for an obscenely overpowered length of time.

            In the first Crysis, energy took a non-trivial amount of time to regenerate. In Crysis 2, you can attain an upgrade that makes your energy regenerate fully in the space of two seconds.

            In the first Crysis, stealth mode drained energy so fast that you could scarcely move from cover to cover without having to stop to recharge. In Crysis 2, especially with the Stealth Enhance upgrade, you can remain stealthed for huge chunks of time, bypassing entire areas with impunity (arguably a game-breaking feature, but it’s there if you want it).

            And I take great umbrage at the constant, unending suggestions that the game’s levels are “linearized”. Perhaps compared to the original Crysis they are, but relative to almost every other shooter on the market that is most certainly NOT true. And if you actually take a closer look at Crysis’s levels, you’ll find that, surprisingly enough, many of the “arenas” in Crysis 2 actually match the first in the number of options and viable approaches (though, yes, it has nothing matching the sheer freedom of the base assault levels).

            Also, the idea that the suggestions (and they are ONLY suggestions) made by the in-game visor are the only options available makes absolutely no sense at all and taking them as such is a sign of a weak mind. Just because they tell you you can do it does not make them the only possible thing you can do, how does that even make any sense? You can even go through the entire game ignoring the visor entirely and do something completely different from anything the developers suggest you do (which is exactly what I did, thank you very much).

            It’s pretty funny, a lot of these complaints sound pretty similar to complaints about the first Crysis in that the complaints reveal more about the speaker than the game itself…

      • Brun says:

        Well the biggest thing for me was that Nomad actually spoke and had some character to him, while Alcatraz was your typical silent, boring soldier protagonist. The opening levels of Crysis were great because they established some basic characterizations of Nomad and his squadmates. Beyond Prophet’s brief cameo at the beginning, Crysis 2 has none of that. Alcatraz is just a big, dumb, silent lone wolf killing machine who follows one of three pre-designed paths to the waypoint.

  15. Cytrom says:

    No open jungle, no thx. CoDsis 2 was generic, linear and forgettable.

  16. Baresark says:

    The main issue with the whole bow and arrow thing is it’s completely counter-intuitive to the setting. There are a few things that annoy me. First, you don’t need a bow for silence when you have silenced rifles that are ridiculously quiet. Second, it’s much harder to shoot a bow than it is a gun. It’s harder to learn, it takes more time to become proficient with it, and things like wind and weather affect an arrow a whole lot more than they do a bullet.

    Also…. is this the latest game to just shamelessly use a bow and arrow. Rambo uses a bow and arrow, it makes him look extremely bad ass. It makes a guy in a suit which can make you flip a jeep or jump 25 feet in the air look kind of stupid.

    • Shortwave says:

      And something else important to remember is that this isn’t real life.
      And is designed to be outrageous and fun. Ha.
      Thus, tossing in an insanely cool hardcore crossbow is epic as hell.
      And you are a spaz-monkey.

      • jinxed says:

        This isn’t a movie, where throwing in a bow n arrow makes it “EPIC”. It (Crysis 3) should be a game that aims to have the player make tactical and realistic decisions, where the bow and arrow is a poor choice vs. a Suppressed rifle or even just going on an all out assault.

    • LennyLeonardo says:

      Actually, a bow would be a natural choice for a guy who can flip a switch to give himself mega-biceps. Providing it’s made of the right materiels, it’d be extremely accurate over an extremely long range, and the firing action would probably be slightly quieter than the action on an assault rifle, silenced or not. The only problem would be accidentally firing the arrow faster than the speed of sound, which would make a noisy bang.

      Also, yes, it is a game.

      • SiHy_ says:

        “The only problem would be accidentally firing the arrow faster than the speed of sound”.
        What if he accidently fires it faster than the speed of light and as a result sucks an infinite amount of energy out of the Universe causing it to implode? Now that’s a secondary fire mode!

        • LennyLeonardo says:

          I like the idea of firing an arrow so much faster than the speed of light that your target actually dies before you’ve even found the weapon, meaning you need to find the bow, and then fire at the point in space where he used to be standing at some point later on during the game and….. erm…. wait… no.

          • Urthman says:

            If you hit someone with an arrow moving faster than the speed of light, it kills his grandpa so that he was never born.

      • jinxed says:

        The nano-suits “super” strength would break the bow before you could fire an arrow so fast that the effects of wind (and weather) would become irrelevant.

    • Shortwave says:

      It is now a Big Bang gun.

    • oceanclub says:

      “First, you don’t need a bow for silence when you have silenced rifles that are ridiculously quiet”

      If we’re going for realism here, isn’t “silenced” weapons a myth anyway? Silenced (“suppressed”) weapons are _relatively_ quieter, but still loud. So in that context, a bow _does_ make sense.

  17. Shortwave says:

    OKAY let me explain this.
    COD SP = 20 square foot fighting areas which you die if you leave = Linear
    Crysis 2 SP = huge segregated -arenas- which you can do anything in = Not Linear

    Yes, the story isn’t adaptive there-for the story is linear, sure.
    But the gameplay is anything from linear, where you can choose where to fight and how to fight.
    Instead of waiting for your AI buddy to kill half of everything for you so you can save the universe by pressing X.

    I realize the game is far from flawless but linear it is not.
    It was easily my favorite SP FPS game of 2011.

    I’ll def’ be buying the next one as they’ve had a lot more time to play around with the new engine and refine their tricks with the engine, I’m sure it’ll be amazing and might even have good tessellation this time. Heh.

    • sephiroth says:

      Shortwave says:

      OKAY let me explain this.
      COD SP = 20 square foot fighting areas which you die if you leave = Linear
      Crysis 2 SP = huge segregated -arenas- which you can do anything in = Not Linear


      you got the cod description spot on apart from I think you over estimated the map size, 20 square feet more like 20 feet long and 6 feet wide.

      crysis 2 however I dont remember anything I could call ‘huge’ pokey yes huge no. for huge see the opening of crysis I dunno how far in 10 minutes maybe. the bit where you have to go around the bay thats huge and probably about the same total area as all of crysis 2 and if not its bigger than every cod game combined.

      “which you can do anything in” I have to ask if you actually played crysis 2?

      • Phantoon says:

        Speaking of “die if you leave the map”, did you know in… I think it was the original Medal of Honor, if you ran over the mines right after someone else got exploded by them you could escape the map?

      • Shortwave says:

        Right well think of it this way. Anything being.
        Climb buildings, traverse anything really. You can go in guns blazing.
        Or you can be stealth. You can pick up objects and hurl them at the enemy.
        Fling cars. I skipped through half of a hard level just being stealth.
        You can’t usually do that in a corridor shooter, as far as I remember.

        As far as me choosing the word huge..
        Honestly if you’ve ever poked around in game engines you’d appreciate the size of their maps with the level of detail they use.. Of course in any map with a story, theres more than likely going to have to be an entrance and an exit. Even in the original Crysis the maps are never THAT big.. I sort of remember it starting off in a thin narrow cayon TBH. Look at the detail on the buildings in Crysis 2 and it easily matches the complexity of a jungle. Also, a map can only be so large because it just becomes redundant in story driven games. When theres a task to accomplished theres no real point in having a 10 minute nature walk to do yoga in I suppose you could say.

        With that being said. I’d love to meet Crysis 2 and GTA’s bastard child.

      • ResonanceCascade says:

        Agreed. The linearity of Crysis 2 should be compared to Halo, not COD. Some corridors leading into large, open set pieces. COD is vastly more restrictive, even if it isn’t necessarily more ‘linear.’

        I hope they do open it up again, as Crysis 1 was a much better game, but for what it was, I really liked Crysis 2.

        edit: reply meant for shortwave

        • jinxed says:

          This is a great comment. As an analogy, the corridors in CoD are 10ft x 6ft x length. In Crysis 2, the corridors consist of skyscrapers, tall apartments, and huge masses of rumble, but exist none-the-less. Unlike in Crysis 1, in Crysis 2 you have ~1 direction of approach to every level. Sure, you can stealth through some levels, but you are ultimately forced to go through one point of entry, and the options just aren’t there.

    • Milky1985 says:

      So the long road areas didn’t exist in crysis 2? Oh and these big arenas were not really that big , mostly just “2 ways to go in”. And the end sequence was not a big run along a path :D

      Sure there were some “big” arenas, but these were the exception, not the norm.

      The game was linear as well, sure not as linear as cod (thats impressive if you can get more linear than that) but still linear.

    • Cinek says:

      COD is an ungame, don’t compare it to anything else. That’s a different kind of thing… like… a mix between movie and game with worst parts of both worlds joined together.

  18. Khemm says:

    I bought Crysis 2 knowing it wouldn’t be as good as the orginal, and the game managed to disappoint me like no other despite my already low expecatations.
    – the story makes no sense, it’s not interesting and almost completely ignores what happened in Crysis 1. C1 had a simple Predator-like premise (which kept escalating) and it worked. The sequel is a mess in that regard
    – the physics system is worse, the graphics are worse – grain filter, ugly textures, bland art direction, no sharpness to the image, the default AA is AWFUL.
    – I knew the game was going to be more linear than C1, but it really was painful to see how much it suffered because of that. Crysis 2 is more open than Call of Duty admittedly, yet feels just as restrictive. I don’t know why, maybe it’s the static environment you can’t toy around in
    – HUGE ASS WEAPONS AND ATROCIOUS FOV. Whose bright idea was to make the weapons occupy approximately 40% of the screen?!
    – Omnipresent tutorials which stop you in the middle of a corridor and the Nanosuit which won’t shut the fuck up
    – Hold down the jump button to super jump-REALLY? No separate key for that?
    – And now, something that killed this game for me – there’s no atmosphere. No fun factor. I found it SO BORING, .

    Unless C3 is a huge improvement, Crytek can kiss me where the sun doesn’t shine. I paid 25 pounds for C2 and can’t believe I did. What a boring, uninspired, pathetically designed POS.

  19. sephiroth says:

    the big question is will anyone on pc actually buy this one?

    unless they are about to say its a next gen console title (doubtfull) and therefore might actually be ok on pc its going to be crysis 2 (not warhead) the revengening I mean the chessening oh sod it i mean the cash in yeah thats it

    Crysis made me feel like the shooter genre was about to go great places. Amazing graphics and huge wide open maps. what we got was several years of ugly grey shooters on tiny normally very narrow maps. then crysis went all console and gave us slightly worse grapics on narrow maps and allot of grey

    oh wait I got a better one Crysis 3 the CoDening maybe a better title for the 2nd one but still they could make it greyer and narrower. no2 had the odd plaza and thats much wider than a grey coridor but still not a whole sodding island like it should of sodding had.

    anywho crytek would you please either wake the fuck up and make a real cysis game again or eat shit and die

    • Cinek says:

      “the big question is will anyone on pc actually buy this one?” – Buy? After Crysis 2? And how Crytek shown clearly everyone where they have PC gaming? You’ve got to be kidding me.

  20. Phantoon says:

    I miss the days when Kieron Gillen would just POST those references.

    And make us all suffer.

  21. Nallen says:

    What on earth is with the aggresive closing statements?

    “Unless C3 is a huge improvement, Crytek can kiss me where the sun doesn’t shine”
    “anywho crytek would you please either wake the fuck up and make a real cysis game again or eat shit and die”

    You’re just throwing any credibility you might have otherwise had out of the window.

  22. Moni says:

    I like Crysis 2, it felt like a more focussed and polished game than the first two, and that seems to suit Crytek’s MO better. The spectacles are more spectacular.

    It’s one of the better tightly-structured games that have come out in the last few years, I look forward to see where they go with it.

    • Zyrusticae says:

      Agreed. Like the first game, it’s one of the few shooters whose single-player mode I can replay without feeling bored.

      So many ways to approach things, from going with a “pistols-only” run, trying to use Air Stomp as often as possible (harder than it looks!), eschewing stealth entirely, using tossed objects more frequently, and so on.

      And the graphics, post-DX11 patch, are simply excellent. Combine that with the crazy set-pieces and it’s just a feast for the eyes.

  23. Tuskin38 says:

    The Limited Edition only $49.99? That doesn’t sound like EA. I thought all their new games were now $59.99

  24. cqdemal says:

    I hope they can blend the gameplay styles of 1 and 2 for this one. Both are a joy to play for me, but Crysis 1’s heights were so much higher than 2’s, and 2’s first few hours are quite frankly pretty dreary for a big-budget shooter.

  25. Napalm Sushi says:

    The header image just puts me in mind of this:

    link to

    (I know, it’s a TVTropes link. Don’t panic, it’s just a picture.)

  26. buzzmong says:

    Crysis 2 wasn’t a bad game. Full credit to Crytek in that it was rather polished as well.

    It was a bit boring though, for the most part I didn’t feel like a nanosuited supersolider, just a regular FPS shooter just-better-than-your-average bloke. It lacked grandeur, both in environment design and plot.

    It did contain some good set pieces at times, although sadly few and far between.

    I also don’t need to be told “Cryvision enabled” or whatever it was called every single time I used it (which was a lot) as I could bloody well see I was using it.

  27. Volrath says:

    What happened to Crysis 2? Oh yeah right: consoles, never mind

  28. rocketman71 says:

    Oh, no!. More Cevat crying incoming :(

  29. Gunsmith says:

    After Crysis 2, Nanosuitninja is unimpressed.

  30. King_Rocket says:

    “They used to call me Prophet” (Profit)

  31. Iskariot says:

    Like most I was a bit surprised and disappointed by the smaller levels in Crysis 2.

    Having said that, I absolutely loved the game. It is a sound and capable and polished and solid shooter. One of the best, I think. The weapons are great, the suit and its features feel superb. I felt more and better augmented than I did with Deus EX HR.
    The city jungle was very well constructed and was immersive and spectacular.
    The AI is one of the best and took care of interesting, exciting and difficult and rewarding battles.

    As I said, I would have loved somewhat more open, larger levels, because after the first game, that is what you expect. Nevertheless Crysis 2 was an absolute joy to play. I played it right after Deus EX HR and it felt like a refreshing cold breeze to me. I enjoyed the battles in Crysis 2 much, much more than I did in Deus Ex HR and I also felt much more like an augmented superwarrior than I ever did in Deus Ex HR.

    • Gunsmith says:

      Play the original Crysis then, if you thought 2 was good then the original will blow your mind.

  32. Shooop says:

    The sandbox approach of the first game in a city would make for endless entertainment. But any hope of that happening is long gone.

  33. Lacobus says:

    Alec you beautiful English man guy. I’ve been swearing for years that I once saw Oasis cover ‘I’d like to teach the world to sing’ on TOTP. Turns out I was wrong but at least now I know why. Cheers ears!

  34. shopshop1 says: so cool for business and earn money

  35. CorruptBadger says:

    It was inevitable they made a third, with the commercial success of the first two and the ending of the seconds, basically that German guy saying, “Hey guy in a nano-suit, you only helped Manhattan, what about everywhere else?”