Crytek On Fusing Crysis 1, Crysis 2, And District 9

Quiet now - I'm done being hunted by and will now proceed to hunt wabbits.
Many people set their furrowed brows to maximum anger (known in some places as a warface) and rallied against Crysis 2. I wasn’t one of them. It was, in many ways, a far more directed experience than Crysis 1, but it was still far from being Modern Warfare in a snazzy pair of robo-pants. That said, when word got out that Crysis 3 was aiming to get back in touch with the series’ more open roots, I may have done a little dance. But then, mid-awkward-convulsion-shuffle-step, I halted with a sudden sobering realization: could it all be too good to be true? Fortunately, this entire series of events took place at a Crysis 3 event in San Francisco yesterday, so I immediately turned and asked director of creative development Rasmus Hojengaard. Here’s what he told me.

“It’s kinda in the middle on the [spectrum between Crysis 1 and 2],” Hojengaard began. “We still see huge advantages in having more condensed, controlled paths like in Crysis 2, and we also see advantages in going much broader whenever that supports the experience we want to convey. Obviously, we’re not gonna have big, full islands to explore like in Far Cry or Crysis 1, but we will definitely have areas utilizing our Seven Wonders of the Rainforest that support grand epic scale more than the [demoed] swamp theme does – which is kind of a claustrophobic and nasty place.”

“So we’re using advantages of either of these scenarios whenever it fits a story beat or gameplay experience or whatever we want to convey. And then, from a locations point of a view, we have an ability to push more on the actual premise of the location because this is an artificially grown rainforest. We can make it a rainforest beyond a real rainforest and a city beyond a real city. So our dynamic range is bigger than it was with either of the previous games individually.”

But is it really? I mean, if Crytek wanted a bigger “dynamic range,” why take yet another bite out of one of gaming’s quickly rotting settings: the Big Apple? Crysis 2’s New York City was nice and all, but Crysis 3 takes place 20 years after its predecessor. The world’s an entirely different place. Surely main character Prophet might be up for a little globe-trotting and sightseeing, right? If, however, there’s one point Hojengaard wants to drive home, it’s that Crytek isn’t taking the easy way out with a return to Crysis 2’s tried-and-true setting.

“One thing I want to underline is that we did not do this because it’s easier for us,” he emphasized. “All of the assets have been created from the ground-up. There is nothing left of the New York you saw in Crysis 2. As you saw in the demo, there’s no resemblance to what we did before.”

“I mean, the example I’ve used is let’s say there’s a war, and your hometown is bombed, and so is your friend’s. Going to see your hometown is going to be completely different from your friend’s because you already have a connection to that place versus a place you’ve never been before. Although it’s obviously not the same [with Crysis 3], it’s still a little bit of that principle.”

He went on to compare the decision to a long-running television series. Multiple seasons, he explained, give creators space to really explore certain characters and themes, which – when done well – create a strong sense of attachment in viewers. “We want to create depth and richness rather than breadth,” he explained, using the rapidly shifting settings of games like Call of Duty and Battlefield as points of reference.

Meanwhile, in terms of characters who aren’t made of buildings or armored squid monsters, Prophet’s leading the charge. He had something of a – to put it lightly – bumpy ride in Crysis 2, but Crysis 3 sees him back in control and possessed with the rather convenient ability to reduce the Ceph to incredibly unappetizing calamari with their own weapons. Interestingly,  that’s the end result of one of Crysis 3’s more apt influences: Neill Blomkamp’s fantastic directorial debut, District 9. So if Prophet’s slow crossing of a species gap seems a bit familiar to you, well, there’s a reason for that.

“We look at the protagonist of District 9 and the fact that he’s kind of this yes-man, and that doesn’t lead to any good for him until he takes charge of the situation and just gets shit done,” said Hojengaard. “So there’s a parallel, except that Prophet is a little cooler as a character. District 9’s character is a little goofy, but at the same time, he’s very interesting. We’re always inspired by stuff, and District 9 was a great movie. Whatever kind of loose ideas we can leverage and push even further, we do that. So it’s all about being inspired by all kinds of stuff and juggling that and making it into your own art. It’d be dumb as a creative developer to not look at all the other great stuff people do – whether it’s games or movies or books or whatever.”

At the same time, however, some influences are best ignored, and Hojengaard pointed out a rather large one: the grand majority of nerd culture’s entire history. I asked him why, in this day and age, it’s still out of the ordinary for a game to have a black main character – let alone a well-written one. His response was illuminating – though it raised just as many questions as it answered.

“The reason we chose Prophet is because he’s an interesting character and he has a really great kind of powerful presence,” he explained. “Whether he was black or white didn’t really play much of a role. We just thought he was the right kind of character to explore in this game. But I think ultimately the reason gaming is kind of dominated [by white male leads] is kind of a legacy thing from comic books. And people probably aren’t really conscious of it, but you just kind of carry on what has already been done for a long time. But there is definitely a discrepancy there and definitely a dominance of Caucasian characters.”

Which makes sense on some level, but utterly fails to excuse it. Rare is the gaming lead who’s anything other than a white male between the ages of 18 and 34, though recent years have, I suppose, made imperceptibly slight moves in the right direction with the likes of Assassin’s Creed III, Left 4 Dead, the Grand Theft Auto series, and a handful of others with generally diverse casts. Even so, are generally action-intensive games like Crysis counter-intuitive to the development of interesting, non-meatheaded characters  – race/gender/sex diverse or not? Sadly, before I could ask Hojengaard for further opinions on the matter, the extremely hurried ten-minute interview came to a halt. I’m attempting to follow up with him on a few other Crysis-related topics as well, so I’ll keep you posted when I hear more.


  1. Flukie says:

    I personally really enjoyed Crysis 2, sure it wasn’t anything really special but it had interesting mechanics, great graphics and environment and just felt like a fun action blockbuster.

    I loved the first and Warhead more however but I don’t hold the franchise in high esteem but I do think your gonna have fun with it if you play it stealthy, same for Deus Ex.

    • vodka and cookies says:

      The first for me was a boring trudge through wide open spaces not used effectively and the suits powers were rarely useful as a result, I generally don’t see the appeal of the first game at all unless your a huge FarCry fan but even FarCry 1 was better than Crysis 1.

      Warhead was a step in the right direction but Crysis 2 was the best of the bunch if you actually wanted a game that makes use of the suits powers & that’s why I prefer it.

      Anyway on another topic racism/sexism is still rampant in the games industry so black or even female leads in games are still pretty rare, for maximum creepiness take a look at Half Life 2 high resolution mods often Alex Vance is whitened and her ethnicity changed.

      • Aemony says:

        FakeFactory’s HL2 Cinematic Mod series is a strictly one-man fan-created mod tailor specifically to the creator’s own personal preference, whom seems to be “self-employed in the IT-service-bussines, providing service for advertising agencies”. If that mod is the one you mean (which I bet it is as I haven’t heard of any other HD mod) the example isn’t exactly accurate as every single character has a different look hardly close to the original. Even so, the mod comes bundled with various models, including a HD resolution model of the original Alyx Vance, as well as HD models for the other characters which are more true to the originals. What I’m saying is that the example is hardly appropriate of the industry as a whole, since the creator doesn’t seem to have any ties to the industry save for his interest as a consumer.

        A much better example would be BioWare’s treatment of the female Shepard when it came to acknowledging her from a marketing perspective for Mass Effect 3. The original look was deemed insufficient so they held a beauty contest on Facebook for fans to determine the most appealing look, all of which were younger, more attractive and used more makeup than the original one used in ME1 and ME2.

        • Sparkasaurusmex says:

          There are different models you can choose from in that mod for Alyx. I believe multiple ethnicities are represented.

          Of course if you ask Facebook about Femshep they are going to pick the more attractive, younger models. This is just biology. I haven’t played ME, but is the main character’s ethnicity not selectable? Most RPGs let you be dwarves or elves, I’d imagine ME3 should let you be black or Asian.

        • Zelos says:

          It was a serious issue(In my opinion at least); the only way to make an attractive female shepard was to mod the game. Most people do not want to play an ugly character.

          Sadly, the new “official” model was just as ugly as the old one. ME’s character creator is just horrid.

    • buxcador says:

      Crysis was so linear, that I watched it on YouTube, and didn’t feel the need to play it. It felt like a shooting gallery. No planing, no strategy needed. No fun. I didn’t bought the game, and I miss nothing.

  2. kwyjibo says:

    That bow is all District 12.

  3. faelnor says:

    but utterly fails to excuse it

    Did you expect him to grab a whip and start self-flogging just because his answer wasn’t “We find the current state of gaming very unjust and discriminating towards all non-caucasian gamers and hopefully our black protagonist is a step in the right direction”?

    “Obviously, we’re not gonna have big, full islands to explore like in Far Cry or Crysis 1”

    Crysis did not have any full islands to explore, it was made of relatively large areas with parallel paths that funnel to a loading zone. I don’t see how “open” they can pretend to be if they don’t do exactly the same. But we all know he means that much of the game will be linear and directive with a few open areas (even hubs?), although smaller than in Crysis. I do not think this is the best of both worlds.

    Anyway, linearity is only half the culprit for making Crysis 2 much more boring to me. There’s also the fact that I found shooting pink aliens in armor to be subpar after having a lot of fun with different approaches on human soldiers in the original. The new enemies, although more varied, just don’t have the same appeal.
    Sounds like they’re not going back to Crysis 1 on that one.

    • StingingVelvet says:

      The aliens in Crysis 2 were made to behave just like humans actually, and stealth and such worked on them as well it did humans. I don’t really get how people carry over the complaints about the aliens in Crysis to Crysis 2, they fixed that problem IMO.

      • faelnor says:

        Maybe they did in some places, but I was too busy complaining that they looked ridiculous to try different approaches.

        • buxcador says:

          Yea. The alien looked childish, and poorly animated.

          • Necroscope says:

            Making the alien species more like Predator would be my ideal change. An enemy that makes the kids shit themselves with fear!

    • f1x says:

      True it was not so fun fighting this enemies, plus most of the times I abused the mechanics to kill them from a far or bugging them, the AI was pretty bad and seeing those aliens sometimes follow circular routes through the scenario was lame

      on the other hand, what disappointed me from Crysis 2 is that it was marketed as “vertical”, and I imagined much more around the skyscrappers and buildings, and there was actually not much verticality in map design

    • Cooper says:

      “Obviously, we’re not gonna have big, full islands to explore like in Far Cry or Crysis 1” Why obviously?

      • Jim Rossignol says:

        Because no one likes big open environments to explore! We all hate that, right gamers?

        • AmateurScience says:

          Right! They were by far and away the worst part of Skyrim and the rest. Corridors for the win!

          • TechnicalBen says:

            Oh my. I might go back to Fallout 3. I mean… open, a problem?

          • RakeShark says:

            What’s that phobia of large open spaces and tactical flexibility? I can only assume by their obviousness that I have that.

        • jonfitt says:

          If there’s one thing I hate in games it’s freedom. I play games to be told what to do and when to do it. I shouldn’t have to be thinking about when i should open a door, I expect someone to kick it open at the appropriate moment for me.
          I like to keep my hands inside the ride at all times.

        • StingingVelvet says:

          In their defense I do think shooters benefit from direction more than RPGs or generic action games. Deus Ex is basically linear levels on a hub world, for example. Crysis was not truly that open, just wide pathways. The only completely open world shooter I can think of is Far Cry 2, and a lot of that game’s problems could be seen as related.

          I think he is right to seek a balance, I just think Crysis already nailed that balance in the original.

          • WrongThinker says:

            By golly… you GET it. I swear your the first person besides myself to point out that Crysis’s level design was functionally as linear as C2. It’s not that C2 added corridors, it’s just that it made them narrower. If you actually look at the number of options you have in C2 and compare it to the number of options in the original C, you’ll see the number is about the same. You just have to walk or swim less to get to those options in C2.

            For the record, I like the original C the best, but I enjoy all 3.

        • SuperNashwanPower says:

          Digital Agrophobia. Terrible affliction.

        • lijenstina says:

          It’s harder to make obviously. Here look at these high-res wall decals instead.

  4. Gap Gen says:

    Wait, so in Crysis 3 you’ll team up with the aliens after racially abusing them for a while and strike up a friendship with a child Ceph and his father?

  5. KauhuK says:

    I liked Crysis 1 more than 2. Crysis 2 has a bit too much consolitis in it than I’d like. Also the story in crysis was a bit confusing but I didn’t get crysis 2 story almost at all. Should have paid more attention. As a whole the crysis series feels a bit mixed bag that has a story that doesn’t make much sense.

  6. Derppy says:

    There’s a few things I found very enjoyable in Crysis and Far Cry.

    Attacking the enemy camps, when the enemies were still human soldiers. You could come up with your own approach and when you executed it perfectly, it was very satisfying. I used to have saves for almost all the locations where this was possible.

    Both of the games also featured remarkable graphics for their time and Crysis had a pretty nice physics engine too. I enjoyed just exploring the jungle, admiring the graphics and playing around with the physics.

    I never liked the games for their generic story, flashy scripted events or intense action, so I’d prefer a sandbox-setting in some future title.

  7. Hoaxfish says:

    We look at the protagonist of District 9 and the fact that he’s kind of this yes-man, and that doesn’t lead to any good for him until he takes charge of the situation and just gets shit done,” said Hojengaard. ”So there’s a parallel, except that Prophet is a little cooler as a character. District 9′s character is a little goofy, but at the same time, he’s very interesting. We’re always inspired by stuff, and District 9 was a great movie.

    All I see here is “District 9 is a good film… by mentioning it we’re making us sound good too”

    Wikus is a yesman, and a bit of a cowardly arsehole, and basically has to get his shit in gear to not be completely fooked by his own misadventure.. I’d question how that ties into a character who is a “cool black guy in power armor fighting an alien invasion with a bow”

    Tackling racism by dressing someone in full covering body armor, is much the same as tackling sexism by dressing like Samus… if you’ve removed all distinct features by doing so, is it that strong a point?

    • Jamesworkshop says:

      Who said anything about tackling racism, all the nanosuit squad members wore full covering body armour because that’s how the suit worked

      “removed all distinct features”

      What’s your name? (pause) Okay. I’ll just call you Ageless-Faceless-Gender-Neutral-Culturally-Ambiguous-Adventure-Person. AFGNCAAP for short.
      — Dalboz, Zork: Grand Inquisitor

      Distinct is not how I would describe the characters in the crysis series, Tara strickland was more developed than Nomad was as a character.

      Psycho had the most personality of all and he was a Jason Statham clone.

      link to

      link to

      • Hoaxfish says:

        I asked him why, in this day and age, it’s still out of the ordinary for a game to have a black main character

        That’s where I think it appears that the topic is being brought up.

        And that’s exactly my point, a bunch of nanosuited people don’t really make make much of a “thing” about anything when you can’t even see that they’re human (beyond a humanoid shape), let alone which specific “type” (skin colour is distinct in so far as it distinguishes you from people with other coloured skin, one of the key points of racism)

        • Sparkasaurusmex says:

          All the best characters in Madden Football and NBA 2k are black

  8. StingingVelvet says:

    I thought Crysis 1 WAS the balance between open worlds and directed experiences. It was not fully open, it was actually really linear, but the linear path was so wide it felt open and allowed for different approaches.

    • Moni says:

      All the goodness of a sandbox game without the commute.

    • Grape Flavor says:

      Well, this is a balance between THAT balance, and more linear like in Crysis 2.

      I remember how much people complained about the traveling in Far Cry 2, and that it was too open and directionless.

      You can please some gamers some of the time, but you can’t please all the gamers all of the time!

      • Brun says:

        The problem with traveling in Far Cry 2 was twofold. First, the fast travel system was poorly implemented. You basically had four fast travel points that could take you between the corners of the map. However, the space in between those corners was vast, and there wasn’t usually a fast travel dropoff point near where you wanted to go. So there was a lot of driving around the same roads.

        The other problem was the respawns. Taking 10 or 15 minutes to drive from the fast travel point to your objective wasn’t usually a problem – except the checkpoints on the roads meant that you basically had to stop and kill 5-10 enemies MULTIPLE TIMES en route. It turned what would normally be at most a 10 minute drive into 30-40 minute grinds. Plus, the constant threat of running into hostiles really made honest exploration a lot less fun.

        Crysis didn’t suffer from that because its levels were technically linear – you started at point A, and ended at point B. The maps were open enough that there were multiple ways to reach point B from point A. But most of those paths didn’t involve EXCESSIVE driving or walking, and enemies didn’t respawn and constantly harass you.

        • SamC says:

          Wasn’t the main point of Far Cry 2 to shoot people? If the checkpoints stayed empty, you’d have an empty world, and a truly boring drive. What would be an acceptable respawn time? The way people talk about it, it seems like enemies respawned right on top of you while you were clearing the checkpoint, but that’s not the case.

          I guess if you played it just to finish the missions, the checkpoints would be seen as a hassle and a grind. But it was fun to clear them out just of the sake of clearing them out, choosing a new approach every time you come to a checkpoint, depending on your loadout and what you felt like doing.

          I agree the checkpoint system could be improved, maybe have troops actually move between checkpoints, reinforcing cleared checkpoints, maybe even battles between the two factions as they moved to claim a cleared checkpoint. That’d also give clearing the checkpoints a purpose, and the game world would continuously evolve. I guess that’s what Clear Sky was supposed to be.

          • Brun says:

            It’s not that simple though. Sure the point is to shoot people, and clearing the checkpoints is part of that. But clearing the same checkpoint four, five, six times even because it happens to be right outside your safehouse gets very, very annoying after a while.

            Or for example, say you’re in the northwest area of the map. You look at your map and say “hey, I haven’t done much exploring in the southeast corner, I’ll head down that way.” But just to get there, you have to clear several checkpoints that you’ve already cleared multiple times during your travels within the northwest quadrant.

          • ThatGuy says:

            To me at least, it was more that it felt like you had absoloutely no impact on anything. Everybody you killed will simply respawn and the quests vary between Kill X or Get Y, or some combination of the two.

            Then the whole “Ah, you work for us, but let’s not tell the men, that way you get to murder all of my comrades, or my comrades will murder the man doing very important missions for me!” just felt lazy and again, left the annoying feeling of you having no impact on anything.

            I quite liked the exploration as it was quite big and reflected the Savannah well and the fire physics were really nice, but whatever, I was just hoping for something more like Far Cry in the desert with extra bits.

          • SamC says:

            Those are both fair points. I think making it so you could actually side with a faction and capture checkpoints for them, so you’d have friendly checkpoints you could drive through peacefully, while the other factions would still try to take the checkpoints so it wouldn’t be static. And maybe have a third ‘bandit’ faction that you couldn’t ally with that would attack and cap checkpoints on their own. I’m sure that would have it’s own problems, though.

          • Arglebargle says:

            In an interview, the Lead on Far Cry 2 mentioned that they were told about the checkpoint respawn problem in beta. But apparantly it was somehow just too difficult to fix. ;( I literally had the experiance of clearing a checkpoint, taking a wrong turn, almost immediately turning around to go back, and finding the checkpoint occupied again. Sigh. There’s loads of other fail in it as well.

            Corporate myopia really killed this though: If they had released a design kit for the modders, Far Cry 2 would have been remembered, and still be played, as a great game. Instead of the stoopid failure it is now.

  9. Moni says:

    Hmm, in Crysis 3 you’ll be a dude playing a dude in the body of another dude.

  10. Grape Flavor says:

    Nathan – could you see if you can get an statement out of Crytek to the effect of whether the DX11 and all the PC goodies will be available at launch this time?

    I think that was the other thing that really hurt them with some people regarding Crysis 2, besides the linearity.

  11. bitbot says:

    Wait… didn’t Prophet kill himself at the beginning of Crysis 2, just after he put white guy Alcatraz in the suit?

    • Max.I.Candy says:

      Yeah he did.
      Unfortunately thats all i remember of Crysis 2.
      After act1 the plot just started to seem like it didnt matter anymore so i stopped caring (as is the case for most games at this point), so there may well have been an explanation at the end, but i was so not bothered by any of it that i have no recollection of how the game ended.

    • Jamesworkshop says:

      The suit changes all the rules

      link to

      body horror
      Clothes Make the Superman

      • Setheran says:

        I feel like that article did a better job of conveying the story than the games did. The stuff about the suit and the gradual transformation of your character over the course of the game is really interesting. Kind of makes me want to replay Crysis 2 and see if I can actually finish it this time.

    • Xocrates says:


      Yeah, he did. But then turns out that the suit has Prophet’s memories and by the end of the game he had essentially possessed Alcatraz.

      The sad thing is that was the most sensical part of that game’s plot.

      • jonfitt says:

        But to make matters more confusing, Crytek have said that this Prophet is Prophet Prophet, not Alcatraz Prophet.

  12. rustybroomhandle says:

    Will it have fokking prawns?

  13. Silvermarch says:

    Yeah. Crysis 1 wasn’t even that open…. Or THAT good (in my opinion).

  14. augustuskent says:

    I see no District 9 influence whatsoever.

    That film is the best film I have ever seen, and I’d see a better relevance with Half Life than this piece of franchise milking.

    Bring on Far Cry 3!!!!

    • Brun says:

      Same. District 9’s story centered on a couple of different concepts:

      1) Aliens that come to Earth and end up being inferior to humans. Not technologically inferior (an interesting twist, by the way), but organizationally and socially, to the point where humans have almost complete power over them. It’s an interesting departure from the typical sci-fi trope of high-tech aliens that invade the earth and destroy humanity.
      2) Basically, an extended metaphor for and commentary on the Apartheid, which explains the South African setting and further reinforces the position of the prawns as “inferior.”

      Neither of those is applicable to Crysis in any way. The Ceph are not cast as inferior to humans in any way – quite the opposite in fact.

      • subedii says:

        Yeah I pretty much agree with all of that. To be honest, I felt the film was exceptional, except nearing the end when it threw away most of the commentary to focus on actions scenes with power armour.

        Whereas I think that’s the only part of the film Crytek may have actually watched.

        • RakeShark says:

          To be fair, you can’t show an alien gun in the first act without expecting it to be fired in the third act.

    • jonfitt says:

      As far as I can see the District 9 influence is that he alone can use the alien weapons because he has absorbed alien dna (into his nanosuit).
      Now whether or not the absorption starts to take him over completely or not, I don’t know. That might be the end of the analogy.

  15. HisMastersVoice says:

    It all sounds as if they know how much they messed up Crysis 2 in comparison to Crysis 1, but aren’t willing to admit it, instead forcing the same set of subpar gameplay mechanics in the next iteration while sugar coating it with nebulous promises of going back to what made the first game great. I remember they marketed C2 as “pretty much C1 but more focused”. This stinks of the same PR bullshit.

    And Prophet? Who cares about Prophet? We interacted with him for maybe 20 minutes in the first game, none whatsoever in Warhead, and he was dead for 98% of Crysis 2. In the meantime, the only relatively interesting and relateable but apparently villainous Caucasian-male-bald-marine Psycho was killed off screen.

    • Arglebargle says:

      They made a whole extra game out of Pyscho, who was nothing more than the same ol’ crazed, gung ho, action-hero fan service stereotype we always see. I wanted to shoot him out of a cannon before I was done with the tutorial. Almost anything else would be a step up.

  16. Ziv says:

    Actually Assassin’s Creed 1 had a non ‘white’ protagonist, but he was poorly made. Instead of making him an arab assassin, they made him an arab that’s been in america for 10 generations and then returned to the middle east to be an assassin.

    He was too white.

    • dee says:

      They did fix that with Revelations: they retroactively gave him a face further removed from Desmond’s, and his voice was accented.

      Or maybe you mean something less cosmetic?

  17. Corrupt_Tiki says:

    Sam fisher, one of my favourite meatheads looked roughly 40 in SC:Conviction

  18. Arithon says:

    On Crysis 2 you say “It was more directed than Crysis 1” which actually means it was too linear, scripted to death with no options to explore or go off the very narrow path.
    “ was still far from being Modern Warfare..” well thank god for that! Holding up a turd like MW as an aspirational title is absurd. That game had any number of things critically wrong with it. MW1 was the last good game in the series.
    Crysis was never intended to be a linear twitch-shooter for the attention deficit crowd and it’s lamentable that Crytek felt the need to take it there.

    • El_Emmental says:

      “well thank god for that! Holding up a turd like MW as an aspirational title is absurd.”

      => millions of dollars. MILLIONS.

      ps: actually, they made 1 billion (1 000 000 000 dollars) of gross (sic) sales in the first 16 days.

  19. Eightball says:

    >Obviously, we’re not gonna have big, full islands to explore like in Far Cry or Crysis 1

    I guess I don’t see how that “obvious”. Overlooking the fact that Crysis 1 wasn’t *that* open world, how should we know off the bat that Crysis 3 will be more linear? Shouldn’t games be made without being “obviously” predictable about that sort of design detail?

    • AmateurScience says:

      I think the unspoken part was [because of cross-platform development].

      I certainly can’t think of any reason other than ‘it’s really hard’ not to include it if all platforms had the horsepower to do it.

  20. Alistair says:

    I’m glad Crytek ignore the legions of internet whiners who fill threads about their games. You guys have fun with, well, whatever you do like to do.

    • Necroscope says:

      Much of the criticism on this thread is well thought out and interesting to note. Where is the whining ?

  21. yobobjm says:

    I am confused as to why we can’t have big expansive islands to explore. Please, enlighten me.

    • Brun says:

      They can’t get big expansive islands to run smoothly on 7-year-old hardware.

      • Sparkasaurusmex says:

        I’d say this is precise. Same reason the physics where everywhere in Crysis, but many static objects littered Crysis 2.

  22. kibayasu says:

    I guess we’re still never going to find out what happened on that first island with Nomad and Psycho.

    Also, isn’t it a little disingenuous to call the protagonist of Crysis 3 black simply because the Prophet of 1 and 2 were black? I don’t recall ever seeing The Man Formerly Known As Alcatraz’s face or any skin.

  23. Tams80 says:

    It looks like they’re fusing the wrong* bits.

    *entirely subjective of course.

  24. Yosharian says:

    “Obviously, we’re not gonna have big, full islands to explore like in Far Cry or Crysis 1”

    Then I’m not interested. You just lost a sale.

  25. kud13 says:

    Unless there’s more to the game than shooting man-aliens, I don’t see how this can be related to District 9. District 9 wasn’t a shooty movie. It was a human-aliens living together-movie.

    also, the lack of openness/free-form/options cannot be compensated with a nano-bow, Crytek!

    • Jamesworkshop says:

      Crysis 2 was a lot more free form from a powers perspective, the weapons were more varied and the suit had more powers/upgrades

      ledge grabs
      stealth kills
      baseball slide, incorporating melee attack
      Air stomp
      Cloak plus silencer combo
      ripping off mounted HMG, how many times in Crysis did the HMG point in the enemies direction?
      Nano vision(improved over night vision)
      Visor mode tagging improved
      Car/object kicking
      Single player cover system
      Covert ops
      Threat tracer
      Proximity alarm
      Cloak tracker

      Even without a smarter designed nanosuit that’s a lot to add

      Crysis 2 added a load of things to the players arsenal of toys, what Crysis 3 needs is bigger maps with a few vehicle options otherwise it’s not lacking anything.

      Crytek has a full bag of tricks they just need a suitable playground to put them in.

      Crysis wasn’t a complete gem, the alien segments were very restrictive(the most restrictive in the series), The most visually Impressive level was confusing, unintuitive and linear as hell.
      The guns were very samey, FY71/SCAR basically the same gun and better than the other guns especially the sniper rifle which had less ammo available than the much better Gauss rifle.
      Why people complained originally that the weapon carry limit was so low when most weapons were trash I don’t know.

      Actually the real harm done was the removal of quick saves which hurts experimentation, I can strap C4 to a barrel and throw it as a make-shift grenade but do I want to risk a fun but inefficient strategy only to miss then die only to have to rekill the enemies all over again.

      Beware Nano-toast engaged

  26. RAMburger says:

    Are there two Prophets in the Crysis universe? Every site seems to be intent on calling the protagonist by this name in Crysis 3, even though it takes place 20 years after he SHOT HIMSELF IN THE HEAD. Is he back from the dead or something?

    • Inigo says:

      Prophet’s suit built a reconstruction of his mind from his recorded memories. By the end of Crysis 2, he’s either joyriding in Alcatraz’s brain or taken him over completely.

  27. El_Emmental says:

    I finished Crysis 1 in one seat (I remember the sun rising in the room at the final boss), on Hard (not Delta, should try it I guess) and never played it again. It felt like a good environment, with a failed attempt at providing a roller-coaster experience on an island.

    I much preferred Far Cry 1, because it focused on the “lost island” “secret lab/bunker” environment and stuck with it : sure it has the XM29 OICW and the Jackhammer, but they’re both not really overpowered and they don’t make a fuss about it, while some of the enemies were mutants and not complete aliens, I never felt like the game was derailing.

    With Crysis, they tried to cram tropical island, CoD-like rollercoaster and futuristic characters (characters and the supersoldiers suits) into one single game, and imo it’s too much for a single game.

    In Far Cry, you see the labs, the cages, you hear the story – everything is slowly hinting at something fishy, and progressively you meet the mutants. In Crysis 1, it felt like “and now… *drumroll* ALIENS !” and pew-pew there’s now aliens flying around in the jungle.

    They might try to make Crysis 3 more interesting by giving more secondary routes to enemy’s checkpoints/MG nest (yay victory for the demanding gamers !), the coherence of their universe is still rather weak (in my opinion).

  28. matrices says:

    This game isn’t going to be wasted on ‘current’ (read: old garbage) generation consoles, is it?