Wot I Think: Crysis 3

Crysis 3: a first-person shooter set in a post-apocalyptic, alien-invaded New York, in which you wear a Nanosuit which enables you to temporarily become invisible, damage-resistant or able to leap moderately-sized walls in a single bound. It has a lot of graphics. It’s out now in the US, and tomorrow in the UK. Here is an opinion.

“Shit fuck pussy,” says the man. “System X Nano Alpha Ceph Mindcarrier,” says the other man. The stupidest games are so often the ones which take themselves most seriously, aren’t they? Crysis 3, a game about being a flightless Superman with lots of guns and a rapidly-depleting energy meter, takes itself very seriously indeed. Wearing its Modern Warfare influences on its nanofibre sleeve, it gangster-growls and buzzword-babbles without even an iota of self-awareness.

It says much that the Crysis series’ only memorable character, Cyborg Ross Kemp, cockney hardnut Psycho, is here transformed from merry misanthrope to lovelorn sulk, separated from his Nanosuit and relegated to moany cutscenes, radiocomms and COD-aping follow-the-leader sequences. I’m usually all for character development, but Crysis: Warhead’s half-mad star now comes across as a chubby binman who’s in a piss because Arsenal just lost at home. He’s there to be the game’s attempted heart and soul, a mouthpiece for pompous discussion of what it means to be human, but couldn’t some other character have taken on that role, instead of sacrificing the only source of levity and humour to shoegazing and soapboxing? In fairness he regains a little something of his old spirit very late in the game, but waiting several hours to hear him finally call someone a bell-end isn’t quite enough to redeem him.

You, meanwhile, play as returning Crysis 2 protagonist Prophet, who by this point is a memory of a man haunting a half-cyborg, half-alien and faceless body. Every line of his dialogue involves exclaiming “the Alpha Ceph!” in some form. (The Ceph are the aliens. The Alpha Ceph is their leader. You’d like to kill it. It’s a shame the game couldn’t be similarly brief about explaining it). We’re expected to feel very sorry for this tireless saviour of humanity and how much he’s sacrificed, but a pair of talking hands intermittently yelling “the Alpha Ceph!” isn’t really a good enough reason to do so.

But hey, who’s in this malarkey for the plot anyway? Crysis games are about making our PCs bleed, for chaining our graphics cards to sex-crucifixes and whipping them into a state of agonised euphoria, right? I’d entirely agree, were the game not as determined as it is to force its lore-lost scifiballs into my face. Everything takes a back seat to the self-involved, end of the world x1000 storyline, to the point that the game’s overall concept that New York is returning to nature and is trapped within a giant dome (much like The Simpsons movie, only more ridiculous) sort of disappears. What had promise for big ideas (silly or otherwise) is drowned out by talking heads. It seems implausible now that this series’ origins were as a bunch of soldiers with cool armour galloping freely across a paradise island and playing frisbee with turtles: now it’s all wormholes and telepathy and ghosts in the shell and “shit fuck pussy.”

As for freedom of movement within the dome, that’s a mixed bag. Half-Life 2 is a (superior) comparison, and a game which Crysis 3 draws clear sci-fi urban overlord inspiration from, in that some of the environments are large and offer multiple paths of approach, but with the exception of a few optional side-objectives and scouring map corners for upgrade points, we’re talking strictly A-B fare. That’s the route the Crysis series chose with the last game, and that’s because it’s apparently much more interested in being sci-fi Call of Duty than Far Cry with superpowers.

While some maps are impressively large in terms of total area (which is to say seas and forests and mountains made of crumbled buildings positively loom in the background), and loading screens are few and far between, relentless and blatant deployment of rocks and walls which are a half-metre too tall to power-jump over prevents going too far off the beaten, bombed and gauss-scourged path to the next cutscene. You’re outdoors most of the time though, with very little of the game spent in corridors or underground, and the inevitable on-rails buggy, tank and VTOL sequences are all present and correct.

Early promotional talk of the post-apocalyptic New York being split into distinct climes comes to little, as the reality is flooded bit, foresty bit, rocky bit, totalitarian fortressy bit or usually a mix of all four. The size of the maps is impressive and there is variation, but so much of the game is spent in semi-darkness that the diversity doesn’t much make itself known. The dome, meanwhile, is simply a super-detailed graphic painted on the horizon, something that’s mentioned almost in passing but plays no real role. Plus it gets trashed in the early hours of the game, so it’s pretty academic anyway.

Graphics, then. My current system, toting a not-unrespectable GeForce GTX 670, sadly isn’t up to the task of Very High settings at 1080p. It can manage about 25FPS in the quieter sections, but playing like that makes me feel like I’ve eaten too much French cheese. I’m trying to lay temporary hands on a big-boy graphics card so I can do some more benchmarks and comparison shots, but for now the reality for me is playing on High with FXAA on and a few advanced settings (e.g. textures, motion blur, anisotropy) turned down, which averages about 55 frames per second at 1920×1080. If I want it to run well at native res on my 1440p dodgy-but-lovely Korean monitor, I have to drop down to the dreaded Medium. My impression is that Very High doesn’t make a huge amount of visible difference from High while you’re busy playing, but on Medium things certainly start looking a bit Xboxy.

At High, and in my limited experience of Very High, it does look a nose better than most anything else on a purely technical level, but I can’t say that I was truly wowed. There’s an awful lot of visual fidelity in there, and it’s very good at showing huge swathes of world at once, but not to the point that it feels like a statement, as Crysis 1 did. In motion (still images are another matter), as the bullets fly, it doesn’t look dramatically better than Black Ops 2 did with everything ramped up – and that ran a whole lot better on the same PC than this does.

It might be that a different game on this version of the engine would be better able to forcibly remove socks from feet, though. C3 shoots itself in the armourclad-foot by sticking stubbornly to twilight half the time, for being a bit too fond of textbook ruined-city greys and browns, and for the ongoing Michael Bay approach to enemies and technology – that increasingly prevalent style of indistinct spiky bits and desaturated neon piping. Also, the FOV is set to an oppressively low level, but tap cl_fov 80 into the dev console and it gets a bit better. Sadly, it won’t go higher than 80, though I’m sure someone has managed to get around that. [Apparently this affects vertical FOV instead.]

However, the character faces in its cutscenes especially, and to a lesser extent in weapons-free play, are genuinely incredible. Psycho might be a depressed lorry driver now, but his perfectly round face of scowls and scars is a sight to behold, very nearly trading blows with CGI cinema’s best efforts. I could swear he’s even got a bit of ear hair.

Unfortunately, the tiny named cast and the decision to stick every human enemy in a generi-helmet, speaking generi-shitfuckpussy dialogue, means you don’t get to see many other faces at all. As with the wasted geodome concept, Crysis 3 weirdly holds itself back on what could have been its finest aspects. And for a game that bangs on so often about the importance of being human, there sure aren’t many humans in it. Indeed, I struggled to grasp why anyone was remotely bothered about saving New York from further destruction, given it was apparently inhabited only by some squid-faced horrors from planet x or whatever and a couple of hundred sweary members of an evil private army you were casually murdering yourself anyway.

I’ve saved the best for last: the combat. It’s a derivation of the last two Crysis’, which means a choice between up and at ’em warfare and stealth, and in either case you’re aided by your nanovisor’s ability to mark and keep track of targets. On the power fantasy front, it’s this constant awareness of who’s where which does more to support the feeling of superhumanity than the bullet-soaking and cloaking does. You won’t be surprised by what’s around the corner, because you’ve already hidden behind a demolished bus, scanned the landscape and setup handy glowing triangles which identify exactly what’s around the next dozen corners.

Pair that with a vaguely frightening and definitely confusing number of weapons, all of which can be customised on the fly with the likes of silencers, scopes and alt-fire modes, and it’s not a bad game for planning a plan, picking a preferred strategy and either sticking methodically to it or immediately donning your blood for the blood god hat in the event you fluff it, or just get bored of creeping about.

I personally tended towards an invisibility and sniping approach, clearing areas from afar while the enemy struggled to get a bead on me, as well as indulging myself in the hacking of turrets and mines to thin my opponents’ numbers remotely. This hacking involves a simple quick-time event minigame, which is neither exciting or infuriating, and it definitely adds to the sense of Crysis 3 being Deus Ex: Human Revolution as a pure combat game. Energy use and recharge is a little more lenient than in the early Cryses, but not to the point that it’ll get you out of all trouble, and naturally it’s still taking an extended holiday from all logic. Throwing large objects and power-jumping plays less part than it used to in my experience: they’re there, but the constrained environments and surfeit of ridiculous weapons means there isn’t much call for them.

Oh, there’s the bow too, of course. It’s a good bow. It has different types of arrow. It’s basically a sniper rifle with a bunch of alt-fires and annoyingly limited ammo capacity, and it’s entertainingly devastating. I relied on it in the earlier hours of the game, but the ammo limitations meant I was spending too long painstakingly collecting my fired arrows from corpses, so I eventually settled on a standard sniper rifle, with a preposterous range and a silencer, instead. Each to their own, though. It’s a fine and entirely welcome addition to Crysis’ arsenal, and more satisfying than Far Cry 3’s equivalent, but I’m not sure it’s a vital one.

There you go, then: it’s Crysis keepin’ on keeping on, choosing to keep on going down the Crysis 2 fork in the road rather than the Far Cry one. Its love of its own laughable plot, its determination to control your gaze at almost all times and its perpetually angry men suggests it’s very deliberately trying to be the sci-fi COD, and treated in that spirit it does a decent if forgettable job, and in much bigger spaces too. While even a hint of traintrack isn’t what we ideally want from Crytek, it’s an infinitely better singleplayer shooter than any COD since Modern Warfare 4, and I reckon it could stand up to repeat plays so long as you can stomach the blithering, unsmiling nonsense of the plot. Freedom of playstyle, even within the strict confines of making things die, counts for a lot and, y’know, it looks pretty good when it remembers to turn the lights on.


  1. GallonOfAlan says:

    I think I prefer the Far Cry fork all in all, especially if this is going all sci-fi Call Of Dudebro.

    • Cockles says:

      I think you meant to say the FORKRY! Haha. Sounds better if you imagine it’s being said by a posh-aristocratic type: “Jeeves, hand me the Forkry, it’s a far superior specimen to the (insert other pun here (COD-fork?))”

      Puns are generally not my strong point which leaves me a sad observer to this website’s commentary.

    • Stevostin says:

      TBH I already thought FC2 to be better than FC1 or Crysis. This WIT completely convince me to not buy C3, event at bargain price. Can’t stand linear shooters, can’t stand Michael Bay. I moderately enjoyed Crysis 1, and was surprised to see the addition of cinematics really made C2 too much for me to be able to swallow. More of this for C3 ? No thanks, sir.

      • Arkh says:

        Are you mad, my kinds sir? In FC2, if you walked 50 meters off a checkpoint and came back everyone was alive and shooting at you. It was annoying as hell.

        That said, I’d rather Crysis went with FC(number one, not two) way or the original. But going along the Crysis 2 road was expected anyway.

    • cunningmunki says:

      It’s such a shame FarCry didn’t stick to the FarCry fork, instead of the hateful-protagonist-kills-people-and-animals-on-a-pretty-island-while-wearing-Google-glasses fork.

    • rockoman100 says:

      Except it’s not. I’d like to see a COD game provide the level of freedom and dynamics as Crysis 3. Not going to happen. Don’t even make the comparison.

  2. welverin says:

    The woman in the first screenshot is scary looking.

    • FurryLippedSquid says:

      Yeah, I don’t like her bald head either.

    • serioussgtstu says:

      “Ceph, not even once”

    • Ricc says:

      If you’re talking about Shodan, yes. That is a scary lady.

      • welverin says:

        Shodan’s scary for a different reason than freaky looking bandana woman.

    • brulleks says:

      She looks like she’s about to pull something very important off Prophet while he’s cloaked, and she’s really going to enjoy doing it.

  3. Inglourious Badger says:

    ‘Pleading eyes’ tag?

    • scatterlogical says:

      Yeah, he makes me feel strangely the same as Elizabeth from Bioshock Infinite. Is that wrong?

      • IvegotanAtariST says:

        Bioshock Infinite day 1 DLC: Replace Elizabeth with Psycho (wearing Elizabeth’s dresses). Rescue your miserable comrade while he spends the entire game complaining about his life as a binman in 1970’s Doncaster.

    • safetydank says:


    • Zepp says:

      This bald boy is a dreamer.

    • Lars Westergren says:

      I want to hug him and tell him everything is going to be all right.

  4. Heliocentric says:

    Roughly how many graphics does Crysis 3 have?

    • Surlywombat says:

      Estimated to be somewhere between “many” and “all of them”.

    • domogrue says:

      Eleventy Thousand and Seven

      That’s One Thousand Higher.

      • Heliocentric says:

        I’m best trying to play this on a phone from 2049 then? Now all I’ve got to do is install windows 7 on this future phone.

        • The Random One says:

          …without being prosecuted by IBMicrosoftoogleppletendo.

        • Sparkasaurusmex says:

          Just use a winbox windows 7 emulation on your phone

    • SuperNashwanPower says:

      Its funny because ‘graphics’ is not really a plural yet you’re saying it like its a plural. Its a proper play on words that someone like Shakespeare would do, which is why its funny.

      • Ernesto says:

        I like it. And the answer is 42, not ‘all of them’. That would be ridiculous.

        • pepper says:

          Its always 42 isnt it? Hasnt ever let me down though, 42 and I go way back.

      • Reefpirate says:

        But… Graphics is the plural for graphic. You have one graphic, or multiple graphics. Crysis is famous for its many many graphics.

        • SuperNashwanPower says:

          I’m not sure – I think this is kind of an odd exception. You might refer to “a graphic” in say, magazine design, but to use a singular in games? What does that mean? A pixel? Even though it ends in ‘s’, its still used as a singular noun in game usage IMO.

          Anyway, I was being facetious :D

      • Stochastic says:

        It’s funny because you’ve explained the joke.

        The above statement is humorous for its recursive meta-humor.

        The above statement is humorous for its recursive, second-order meta-humor.

        Repeat ad nauseum.

    • Baboonanza says:

      One for every tired meme on the internet. Yes, that many.

      • Vorphalack says:

        The number of graphics in Crysis 3…….is too damn high!

        ….ill get my coat.

      • Eddy9000 says:

        I used to make jokes about how many ‘graphics’ a game had, but then I took an arrow to the knee.

      • Zwebbie says:

        Baboonanza: That must be OVER 9000!

      • yurusei says:

        Enough graphics for a Harlem Shake video….

        …that doesn’t suck.

      • grundus says:

        All this talk of memes and graphics has really rustled my jimmies.

      • yogibbear says:

        My body is ready!

      • Zorn says:

        All your graphics are belong to Crytek anyway.

      • GreatGreyBeast says:

        The graphics are a lie.
        The graphics are a lie.
        This meme should go away and die.
        I’d like to eat a pie.

      • BarneyL says:


      • Geen says:

        Yo dawg, I herd u like graphics so I put some graphics in your graphics so you can graphics while u graphics

    • Caerphoto says:

      None more graphic.

    • Gap Gen says:

      So far I’ve found twenty but am only seven moments into the game (I was distracted by next door’s stork).

      Anyone found the lair of the secret polygon? I hear he gives you a boon, but so far I have only been enveloped in St Elmo’s Fire, which is apparently completely ineffectual.

    • DK says:

      They still haven’t reached the graphical fidelity of Crysis 1, but because of terrible optimizations and the shortcuts they had to take to make it run on consoles for the engine because of Crysis 2, #3 takes WAY too much hardware.

      In short, about Crysis 1 level graphics are at least twice the hardware need.

      • barcharcraz says:

        I played it followed by a replay of C1 (with some custom textures even) and it does look better. The textures are higher resolution, it goes a little softer on the parallax mapping (thank god). The color grading is better, the explosions are better, the fact is that when you get to graphics this high you don’t notice them unless you look real closely at objects. Compare the rocks in C1 with those in C3 for example and you will see a large difference.

        That said it does not have the “holy shit wow” factor that C1 had.

        • rockoman100 says:

          Crysis 1 textures were horrible resolution at some points, especially on rocks. I remember the rocks being awful, as well as the distant mountains. The textures in Crysis 3 are generally MUCH higher resolution than the Crysis 1 textures. The color grading in Crysis 1 was rather bland, and even felt like it was missing shadows at times. I would walk into a room and it would appear almost fullbright. The only part of Crysis 1’s graphics that blew me away at the time was the foliage, water, and parallax mapping. That’s about it. Crysis 3 does all of that better.

      • rockoman100 says:

        The only reason the graphics in Crysis 1 requires better hardware is because Cryengine 2 is substantially less optimized than Cryengine 3. Crysis 1’s graphics were fantastic but Crysis 3 surpassed it.

  5. mehteh says:

    yawn, another console shooter. Crysis 1 wasnt amazing by any means, but at least it felt like a true(PC) FPS. God the HUD just gets bigger and bigger as Crysis goes on

    • Cinek says:

      Just wait when they start to port Crysis to PC from Tablets. Than you’ll have HUD and HUD alone.

    • Bob says:

      Yeah. With a bit of *cough* ini editing to make the suit even more powerful, Crysis 1 was a lot of fun.

      I’ll probably purchase 3 sometime down the track.

      • frightlever says:

        You mean editing the ini file to allow console cheats or was there something I missed?

        I liked Crysis for the first half but the aliens were such a yawn. Why do they keep putting aliens in a respectable man-slaughtering game?

        • DK says:

          I recommend Warhead. It’s graphically worse, and it still has aliens, but it changes the aliens so they work. Instead of Quake level AI they had in Crysis 1, Warhead gives them an AI that is clever, knows how to flank, surpress and be aware of it’s squadmates – which also being smart enough to realize that “hey, we can FLY”. An AI 3D flanking tactics is a terror to fight.

    • rockoman100 says:

      Please justify how this is a console shooter at all. So it has a version on consoles. It has a larger HUD. Who cares?

  6. Splynter says:

    That last screenshot is the best. Is he doing the ol’ campfire story flashlight to the face scare but instead trying with mixed results to give you the puppy dog eyes?

  7. SuperNashwanPower says:

    I LOVED the open-mapped tank scene from the original crysis. God that was good. The one where you could drive anywhere, in that big open field. Did you know you can actually get OUT of the tank and do the level sans-tank, by picking off RPG dudes, stealing their RPG’s, and RPG-ing other tanks? Or steal someone else’s tank? Or forget about driving tanks and blow up tanks with C4? The map you went onto after that massive, wide open port area you could just splash around in, before blowing up a boat?

    I know WHY Crytek have got rid of stuff like that. I know we are never going to change it. But still, that was one of my favourite moments in gaming. Far Cry and Crysis were two of the absolute high points of my then-reintroduction to PC gaming (along of course with Half Life 2). I thought “If this is good now imagine what the future holds eh? It can only get better from here!”. Sigh. Naïveté.

    But I’ve stopped being angry at this generation of games now. Instead I just look back wistfully and go “aw”.

    • Yosharian says:

      They’ve got rid of stuff like that because it’s too complex for the average console gamer, who just wants a set of corridors to walk down and waves of enemies to blow up

      But yeah, Crysis 1 had loaaaads of moments like that

      • darkChozo says:

        Yup, it’s good that we PC gamers are so above such dross as corridor shooters. It’s not like the best selling PC FPS of all time is a heavily scripted corridor shooter or anything like that, no sir. That would just be silly.

        • SuperNashwanPower says:

          Yes but to be honest, back then it was a new concept, it was inventive. Its not that the idea itself is bad or ever has been – its the fact its been done to death over and over in the name of milking a formula. Even COD was incredible up to and including MW1, which still ranks as one of the best games I have played (utterly petrified during the Pripyat fairground part – brilliant).

          That the formula was then kind of incorporated into so many places it wasn’t before is what irks.

          EDIT: I am guessing you are talking about Half Life?

          • darkChozo says:

            Half Life 2 actually, but close enough. And yes, I totally agree that Half Life and its successor were good games, and that they predated the current era of heavily scripted FPS. I’m just annoyed with people who have the PC gaming master race attitude in a world where Black Ops 2 is still the fifth-best selling game on Steam. Consoles do have real negative effects on PC gaming, but blaming console gamers for anything is basically a scapegoat.

          • SuperNashwanPower says:

            Yep it is true that developer decisions do tend to be heavily influenced by that market segment. The PC tends to get the same as the console version, just ported. With Crysis 2, Cevat Yerli actually said it would have been bigger and more complex if not for console limitations. They cut things out that would only work on PC.

            So definitely you can make an argument that the tastes of console owners DO affect the games that the PC gets, though perhaps it is a misdirection to aim the hate at the players. In a way its an artificial ‘war’ – console users and PC users have only ended up in the same space because of developer decisions, otherwise we would freely ignore each other (like people who play angry birds on their iphone would ignore someone playing Mario Kart on a Nintendo DS). Looking to the past, each platform tended to get a very different version because it was accepted that they were each so different. Speccy would be very different to C64, which would be nothing like whichever Nintendo was out at the time.

            Atari ST and Amiga however … that’s where I remember the real fan boy battles beginning.

            EDIT: Would also add that there might be a bias here, in that the average RPS user doesn;t seem to be the type who would buy a COD game now. I wouldn’t, but that’s because I am bored with them. So that given, yes I am going to complain if COD elements end up in a game series I loved for precisely NOT those elements. Its just preference.

        • Yosharian says:

          Yes cos of course all HL1+2 is is a set of corridors with waves of enemies oh wait it’s not

          And by the way this isn’t about ‘PC Gaming’.

          • darkChozo says:

            Yeah they are? ( well, HL2 is, wasn’t talking about HL) Half Life 2 was basically a set of enemy-filled corridors with occasional arenas and small side areas, and everything was extremely scripted. Hell, it pretty much invented the “door is mysteriously locked while NPC talks to you” thing. It’s an excellent game, but it’s one of the big examples of a scripted corridor shooter. Certainly more corridor-y than Crysis 3, from what I’ve seen of the latter.

            And if it’s not about PC gaming, then what was the console gamer comment referring to? Was that just a completely unrelated aside, or were you comparing console gamers’ tastes to those of iPhone gamers? Any comment about consoles on a PC gaming site is implicitly comparing them to PC gaming, unless I’ve missed something major.

          • Yosharian says:

            What I’m saying is that HL is more than the sum of its parts, yes it’s essentially a linear game but it’s built in such a fashion that it doesn’t matter. Crysis doesn’t have this, has never had this. All Crysis ever had going for it was the open-world aspect, which was brilliant in Crysis 1, and took a nose-dive in Crysis 2.

            Hell, in some ways HL2 is more open world than Crysis 2, because in HL2 there are many moments where you are simply exploring the world and yes, being guided in a particular direction, but in a subtle way. I’d rather that than Crysis 2’s HERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT PATHS CHOOSE YOUR PATH.

            This isn’t about PC gaming because there are plenty of people developing on consoles who are doing it right, the Dark Souls developer for example do so much right with their games. This is a console problem, I’m not looking at this stuff and saying MAN PC GAMEZ DO THIS STUFF SO MUCH BETTER I’m looking at it and saying: this could be so much better, period.

            Hell, PC gaming has its own problems, the last few big FPS releases on PC have been pretty dross frankly. If anything, rather than comparing it with PC gaming, I’m comparing it with old school gaming.

          • abandonhope says:

            Reply is for darkChorizo.

            I think the difference between HL2 and modern corridor shooters is that in the latter, a hell of a lot of what goes on just happens around you, whether you’re participating or not. HL2 asks for a lot of participation, and not the QTE sort. It’s the difference between riding a roller coaster and precariously walking the track on foot.

            Oh, and level design that you often have to think your way through. Maybe I don’t play enough contemporary games, but I haven’t seen level design like that since playing System Shock 2 this past week.

          • darkChozo says:


            I think we’re mostly in agreement there. I kinda liked Crysis 2 to a point, but it got boring pretty fast, though I think I’d blame the loss of suit modes and the relative lack of physics objects more than the smaller areas. And honestly, from what I’ve played of both, Half Life 2 are about the same amount of linearity as Crysis 2 does; the big difference is probably that HL2 has far more variety (now we’re shooting guys! now we’re diving along a cliff face! now we’re fighting a helicopter in a hovercraft!), and that I enjoyed HL2 quite a bit more.

            I mostly took offense to the console gamers comment because I don’t believe that PC gamers and console gamers are different in any real sense. Blaming console gamers for anything stinks of elitism and distracts from any real discussion about the interaction between consoles and PC, both of which hit on some pet peeves of mine. If we’re talking about modern gamers, I do agree to some degree, though I think that when people start talking about old school gaming, they tend to put on some shade of rose-tinted glasses.


            Chorizo is delicious but it doesn’t have anything to do with Metroid. For shame.

            And yeah, I rather agree in regards to HL2. I’m objecting to the simplification that linear == bad, or that linear == consoles, when it’s really that bad linear game == bad game. Linear can be done well on any platform, and it can be done poorly on any platform (and it can also be done well once or twice and then copied poorly without end…).

          • Phantoon says:

            Dark Souls follows the design philosophy of Doom better than most current FPSes. Open areas, reward exploration, don’t hold the player’s hand, make bosses large and scary, let people use the weapons they like most, etc.

          • Xardas Kane says:

            Guys, stop pounding Chozo’s head. He isn’t saying HL 2 was a bad game (or that any of the Crysises are better), he is merely pointing out that the linear corridor shooter basically originated on PC. And frankly he is right. Still, as someone pointed out already, Crysis 2 (and possibly 3) WAS limited by consoles technologically.

      • SuperNashwanPower says:

        Warhead: Beach scene. Tank right over the back of the map. Sneak along wall, then stealth past tank with rapidly discharging battery only just letting you make it before the massive relief of reaching a bush to hide and let it recharge. Re-cloak. C4 / de-cloak. Tank turret turns to face you. Press detonator before it fires.

        Oh and that series of islands with the AA guns. Fuck yeah.

      • xao says:

        Those damned console gamers with their pitifully shallow corridor jaunts like Dark Souls, Steel Battalion, and Katamari Damacy. How dare their juvenile tastes impinge on this, the most exquisite of gaming realms?!

    • Jad says:

      Yeah, but I can understand why Crytek turned away, because the first Crysis got absolutely shat on by PC gamers when it was released. As I remember, other than the system requirements, the primary complaint was — and I’m not joking about this — that it was too “generic”. I think because it had soldiers in it or something. Also that it was a tech demo with no gameplay, which is so outside the realm of reality that I can’t even come close to explaining it.

      To be clear, I’m not saying that Crysis was perfect, far from it, but if you’re a developer who makes a great-looking, great-playing game with mechanics that can be found in few other games and the internet just screams at you for making a “generic shooter”, I’d look to other audiences as well.

      • abandonhope says:

        Some say RPS is just a tech demo for WordPress, showcasing what was possible with a microscopic budget in 2007, inexplicably left operational, and maintained and written for by squatters who’ve assumed the identities of a few very minor Internet personalities who’ve since gone on to collectively write comic books under the assumed name of Kieron Gillen.

        Eurogamer is one of the few publications aware of the farce, but even they do not know what happens to the advertising revenue they deliver to RPS’ Mail Boxes Etc. box each month. Reportedly there may be literally dozens of one pound notes Scotch-taped to the bottom of a snapping turtle living in a dumpster somewhere in Millwall.

    • Gap Gen says:

      Yeah, my tank got blown up the first time I played it and I had to continue on foot anyway.

  8. Moni says:

    Hmm, now that you mention it, his head does seem unusually round.

  9. nERVEcenter says:

    That FOV command spoken of is vertical, not horizontal. So yes, that means 80 vertical degrees of field-of-view translates to a ridiculously high horizontal FOV.

    • Joshua says:

      Which is still 10 degrees of vFOV less then we get in Battlefield 3.
      Or HL 2 by default AFAIK.

      EDIT: Factual information and “going back to check it” confirmed that that last bit is incorrect: HL2 has 75 vertical FOV by default.

      • darkChozo says:

        Pretty sure that both BF3 and HL2 use horizontal FOV, and that the default HL2 hFOV was 90 (about 60 vFOV) [both of those are from memory, could be wrong]. 80 vFOV is about 110 hFOV, For reference, 90 hFOV is the usual baseline and 120 hFOV is the usual max on PC games.

        EDIT: Okay, maybe I’m somewhat wrong. HL2 has a default hFOV of 75. BF3 claims to use vFOV but some people on the internet don’t think so and I don’t know what’s true anymore. Regardless, its default is also 75.

        • Correa says:

          I’ve always found Vertical FOV to be misleading more than the old Horizontal FOV way. Could just be me but everytime you increase the Vertical FOV to a normal Horizontal FOV it looks really weird. But if you don’t do it you have this zoomed in view that does your head in after a few minutes of play.

          Was there something wrong with just sticking to Horizontal FOV?

        • Joshua says:

          Bf3 uses Vertical FOV just like Bad Company 2 did before. I am very, very certain of this.
          I am also quite sure that my HL2 FOV slider by default goes to 90 FOV, although I am not very certain on this.

          As for what was wrong with HorFOV: If you want proper widescreen support, making the FOV slider do vertical things instead of horizontal things works a lot better.

  10. Yosharian says:

    More of the same shit we got with Crysis 2, no thanks

  11. SketchyGalore says:

    A little self-awareness probably would have gone a long way. Far Cry 3’s story, as it is, is kind of blah. But you mix together a few good characters and some utter ridiculousness and suddenly we’re caring a lot more because the focus is on fun, not tears and grittiness (even if they’re there, somewhere, in the back).

    I do remember, though, the first time I played what I think was the first Call of Duty Modern Warefare and I got a kick out of those little soldiery quips, “check right, movement right” and whatnot. But wow has that stuff gotten out of control since then.

  12. Vinraith says:

    I’d be all over Far Cry with superpowers. This, not so much.

    • The Random One says:

      ’nuff said.

    • SkittleDiddler says:

      Doesn’t Far Cry 3 have chemically-induced superpowers? Heat vision and super speed and all that weird crap?

  13. ShineyBlueShoes says:

    I got this for “free” with my 7970 so I suppose I won’t complain about it too much. I really loved the MP of Crysis 2(never even started the SP) as much as it’s possible for me to love a generic manshoot. A little disappointed that the graphics are as mind blowing as you’d expect without following the game closely. The MP also doesn’t feel quite as tack sharp so far but maybe it’s because it puts me into Hunter constantly despite my telling it no I don’t want to play Hunter anymore.

  14. SkittleDiddler says:

    That women in the opening pic needs to brush her damn teeth.

    • SuperNashwanPower says:

      She’s been sucking Prophet’s licorice

    • Morph says:

      As if you’d be brushing your teeth while aliens were destroying your home town.

      • Zeewolf says:

        OTOH, the potential results of poor dental care might just be a tiny bit more serious when the aliens killed your dentist five years ago.

      • SkittleDiddler says:

        That would be a major concern for me. Rotten teeth are a bitch, especially during an alien apocalypse where there are no dentists available.

      • lijenstina says:

        You can bite an alien and give them tetanus or septicemia.

  15. ArtyFishal says:

    I enjoy the Crysis storylines and how sincerely they’re delivered. They have some interesting sci-fi ideas thrown in and are far better narratives than seen in most FPSs. Furthermore, the overgrown New York setting feels truly unique and is unlike anything I’ve seen in other games

    Crytek hires some interesting writers. For Crysis 2 they got Richard K. Morgan, author of Altered Carbon (which is fantastic), and for Crysis 3 they have Steven Hall, author of the postmodern mind-fuck, The Raw Shark Texts, and some Dr. Who. I think these guys really put some heart and personality into the later two Crysis games.

    As for gameplay, I think the suit system and weapon systems do give the player a lot of control about how they approach encounters and keep the series unique breaking it away from the shooting gallery gameplay of Call of Duty, Modern Warfare, or Battlefield 3’s singleplayer. None of the Crysis games have been open world, rather they provide sandbox style combat opportunities.

    • Cinek says:

      Crysis storyline was half-decent in Crysis 1. Crysis to was a huge leap down the cliff with whole crap about Prophet and aliens suddenly completely changing. And whole this thing with floating island, entering the alien tentacles and CELL? God…. what a pile of crap.

      They would probably do better by just renaming this game into the Orange Aliens Invasion – at least it wouldn’t spoil good franchise.

    • Snargelfargen says:

      I enjoyed Crysis 1, but it was definitely trying too hard to get that blockbuster movie feel at times. It’s a lot easier to susped your disbelief when there are some talented actors on screen to do it for you.

      I think the mistake a lot of game writers are making now is that they are treating games like they would a screenplay. Unfortunately you just can’t pace a game full of repetitive action the same way you would a movie. It comes across as being overly bombastic when you get these huge sci-fi moments after 15 minutes of relative silence actually playing the game.

    • DK says:

      If those were good writers then they must have been drunk off their gourd when they wrote Crysis 2 and 3, because the plots are shit.

      And neither of them ever actually saw or much less played Crysis 1, because the aliens have nothing to do with the aliens from Cry 1 – and neither do the characters. The entire plot of Cry 1 is left completely dangling (oh I’m sorry, I should say limp-wristedly wrapped up in 10 pages of badly drawn and written pre-order comic book) and the aliens are retconned from head to toe (in sofar as they gave them TOES among everything else).

    • rockoman100 says:

      I agree with everything you have stated here. Thank you OP, for representing the fans of the series in a comments thread full of angry cynics.

  16. ResonanceCascade says:

    Crysis 3 is a very competent stealth action game. By stealth action game, I mean one in which creeping around like the Predator and giving some unsuspecting goons a few surprise body piercings is the way to go.

    I really wish it had fewer “cinematic” ZOMG moments, but other than that I’m pretty happy with the purchase. The plot is probably as absurd as Alec claims. It’s hard to say, since I skipped every single cutscene (except for the unskippable opening one).

  17. Veritaas says:

    You know what? When Crysis 1 came out and sorta took a dump on my 9800gt, I brushed it off and called it a repetitive, boring shooter.

    I replayed it about a year ago on my 6950, with details turned up and I was shocked. This was a phenomenal game with great gameplay and an extremely engaging sci-fi plot.

    Then I played Crysis 2 and was about as disappointed as I could possibly be. Not only was it extremely linear, but they had turned the plot into some kind of ridiculous fan fiction that felt like it was written by a deviantart writer who had never played Crysis 1 and had an overactive imagination.

    What happened Crytek? I can’t imagine EA came along and said “MAKE IT MORE LIKE COD! THAT’S AN ORDER!”

    • strangeloup says:


      • Gap Gen says:

        This is why graphics cards have more chips in them these days.

    • Cockles says:

      I think EA would be the obvious choice. I imagine they required Crysis 2 to be a multi-platform release and I’m not sure environments on the scale of the original Crysis would work on consoles, of course I could be completely wrong about that.

      That wasn’t a denouncing of EA or consoles by the way.

    • wengart says:

      “What happened Crytek? ”

      This happened.

      “You know what? When Crysis 1 came out and sorta took a dump on my 9800gt, I brushed it off and called it a repetitive, boring shooter.”

    • ResonanceCascade says:

      I hope the first Crysis game eventually escapes its reputation as a brainless benchmark FPS, because the first two thirds of it are something approaching shooter nirvana. I’ve played it countless times and each playthough I find something new to love — some crazy emergent situation or less obvious way to take out an area full of enemies.

      I didn’t care for the story, but the gameplay is heaven. It’s like if Jerry Bruckheimer had produced an Ion Storm (Austin) game.

      • Brun says:

        The first half or so of the original Crysis (the part where you’re playing the Predator against a North Korean invasion) was just about perfect in terms of FPS gameplay. The addition of the aliens brought it down some but the gameplay overall was very, very good – it was as if Halo and Far Cry had a love-child.

        A big part of Crysis 2’s multiplatform direction came from Yerli reading about piracy of Crysis on PC and having a temper tantrum about it, then deciding to take the game multiplatform (and make a weak PC port) in order to spite us dirty PC thieves.

    • fish99 says:

      The original Crysis was close to being a blueprint for the perfect shooter. Big open levels, lots of variety and freedom, a suit which gave you tactical options, great gameplay, decent story/characters, amazing visuals.

      It all went wrong with the multiplatform switch, which meant the big open levels weren’t possible anymore, and it meant the story had to work for new players, so they largely discarded the existing story/characters.

      Btw you should absolutely play Warhead.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      Crysis 1 was a great game. It really is amazing how many people missed it entirely. Everything pre-aliens was incredible.

  18. Low Life says:

    It doesn’t look dramatically better than Black Ops 2 did with everything ramped up – and that ran a whole lot better on the same PC than this does.

    But did you try it at the lowest settings, when it’s actually somewhat comparable to CODBLOPS2 (ignoring COD’s habit of letting you see about 50 meters of the level at any given time)?

    • Cinek says:

      You can see further than 50m in Crysis 3?!
      I’m yet to discover this wonder!

  19. SirKicksalot says:

    I’m only in the fourth level after five hours of play. The last three levels I played are WAY bigger than the biggest in Crysis 2.
    It’s an excellent sandbox shooter. It’s not Crysis 2. In fact the level layout reminds me of Far Cry, which transitioned from big open areas to smaller, concentrated and well-defined action bubbles set in intricate artificial spaces. It actively encourages a stealth approach more than the other three games. I suppose that’s a consequence of the Blood Money director being in charge of C3.

    I’ll never understand why people masturbate over the Onslaught level from Crysis, it so fucking boring and empty. If I want to play something with tanks in an open field I’ll go play ArmA, which does it better. Crysis does the Predator fantasy best. The village and harbor are the best levels IMO, and Crysis 2 and 3 have comparable areas.

    The Black Ops 2 graphical comparison is fucking ridiculous.

    • Joshua says:

      I don’t think that it would be ridicioulus persé. I myself feel that Mass Effect 3 looks a whole lot better then Battlefield 3 does, even though Battlefield 3 has a lot of technical prowess behind it.

      But what the painter is painting is much more important then his technique.

    • Brun says:

      The Onslaught level is revered because it’s a great spectacle – in a game that has spectacle as a primary feature.

      It’s kind of like the jet level in the BF3 campaign – even though it was a boring on-rails section it still looked awesome.

  20. Kaira- says:

    But is it into BDSM?

    • dE says:

      How’d you miss the protagonist in the gimp suit?

      • SuperNashwanPower says:

        Also remember the bit in Warhead with the Korean General who made Psycho’s suit super-constrict? The auto-erotic nano-torture you could build around that. Imagine.

  21. Eukatheude says:

    blodo for the blodo god

    • SuperNashwanPower says:

      Memes that are the result of typos in Alt-text are indeed the very best memes

  22. Jimbo says:

    “I’m usually all for character development, but Crysis: Warhead’s half-mad star now comes across as a chubby binman who’s in a piss because Arsenal just lost at home.”


    Also, has anybody seen the tv ad for this game? It’s well shit.

  23. Soup says:

    “The stupidest games are so often the ones which take themselves most seriously, aren’t they?”

    But apparently DMC is excellent?

  24. Don Reba says:

    Who is that gorgeous lass on the title pic and can I have her phone number?

  25. Mathute87 says:

    Wait, it’s still coming out in the rest of the countries not mentioned, right?


  26. Crudzilla says:

    I feel that this review followed a formula that has been rather overused on RPS recently. In that it;

    1.) Feels to me like the author started with an automatic negative opinion due to the games budget.
    2.) Found a funny line of poorly written dialogue or a random AI bug and blew it out of proportion.
    3.) Decryed (pun intended!) that the game does not have some kind of art house existential story line… When if it did you would probably say that it was trying to0 hard for a run of the mill manshoot.

    What’s wrong with a decent action game once in a while? Does every game have to be open world now? Crysis 3 is hardly a corridor shooter.

    I felt like it struck a nice balance between the massive area for no particular reason of the first and the (slightly) over confined second. This game is just not the same game as Farcry 3. It’s like complaining Grimrock had too many corridors and should have been open world…

    Also, it would be nice if you had some kind of fact checking in your reviews… The FOV tweak is VERTICAL FOV setting it to 80 gives an obscenely wide angle. this is plain to see when you set it to 80! It’s more complicated than just which game has the larger number.

    Finally I find the visual comparison with COD pretty laughable. Quite a cheap shot in my opinion.

    I thought my post was getting deleted but maybe it was just an error. Maybe I was a little aggressive in my criticism so I have toned it down a bit here :D. Though I would never ask RPS to hold back in it’s opinions which I appreciate for being brutally honest!

    • wazups2x says:

      I couldn’t agree more! I feel like Crysis 3 is getting a lot of undeserved hate.

    • cunningmunki says:

      It’s a game with ‘3’ in the title which presented no evidence prior to release that anything innovative or different had been attempted. That’s justification enough to start from a negative standpoint, I reckon.

    • Vorphalack says:

      You seem to forget that this game is being measured against Crysis 1, and I suppose in terms of narrative against the Half Life games. The bar was set almost a decade ago and every big budget FPS since has fallen short. Damn right they should be a little negative.

    • rockoman100 says:

      It’s ok, most of the people directing hate towards this game haven’t played it. The ones who have are just upset because it’s not a clone of Crysis 1. News flash: We were never going to get another Crysis 1, stop expecting it, the series was never meant to be open world in the first place.

  27. Shooop says:

    Unsurprising, but still disappointing.

    R.I.P. Crysis series, November 2007 – June 1, 2009.

  28. Bishop99999999 says:

    Play Crysis 3.

    Then play Crysis.

    And that’s how you ruin your day.

    • ResonanceCascade says:

      As long as you play Crysis 3 first, that actually sounds like a damn fine day. One that just keeps getting better and better.

    • rockoman100 says:

      Play Crysis 1. Then Crysis 2. Then Crysis 3. Then you will fully appreciate the plot of all three games in their entirety, because having played the entire series in order it is actually a very high quality trilogy in every way.

  29. Bweahns says:

    I had no intention of playing this game and this review confirmed why. Single path A – B gameplay and enforced viewing of cut scenes and plot/characters you couldn’t give two shits about. This is basically every generic shooter for the past 10 years with great graphics.

    If a game isn’t going to attempt a decent engaging plot it should not waste your time with any cut scenes or other enforced vision crap and let you get on with blowing bad guys up.
    I recently chucked a hissy fit in Far Cry 3 after giving it a second chance when forced into a 5 minute rescue of a burning woman along a linear path with only one very obvious route. You see a pipe explode in front of you and the water pouring from it puts out a fire so you can proceed, then you talk to yourself out loud and say “Hngh! I have to shoot the pipes! Hngh!”. Then in case you weren’t quite getting the idea the places where you are meant to shoot the pipes flash gold. To add tension to this whole scenario there is a timer running that you know will not ever get close to zero. Throw in some pointless random button mashing sections and an annoying woman screaming the whole time and you have _tension_.

    • Cognitect says:

      From the way you’re interpreting this review, it sounds like you’re falling victim to confirmation bias. Some levels in Crysis 3 do force you down a single path from A to B, but many give you a lot of open space to play with. It’s not a true open world game, but still much more open than “every generic shooter for the past 10 years”. There’s also no “enforced viewing of cut scenes and plot/characters”. Every cutscene in the game can be easily skipped.

      • DK says:

        “Just skip the cutscenes” is completely absurd. That doesn’t rescue something that’s shit. It’s like saying “watch the superman reboot! It’s really good! Just turn it off 45 minutes before the end.”

        Media doesn’t work that way. If you make a game that is 50% okay and 50% (spread throughout the other half) crap, then your game is, on the whole FULL OF CRAP.

        • Sparkasaurusmex says:

          That’s not true. I remember Crysis 1 being a pretty awesome game, but also it was 50% crap…

        • Cognitect says:

          Movies don’t work that way, but games often do. As long as the storyline sections are clearly separated from the rest of the game, skipping them to focus on actual gameplay can be a perfectly viable option.

    • rockoman100 says:

      Crysis 1 was the same exact way. I hope you had no intentions of defending Crysis 1 over the rest of the series, because all of your points can be used against Crysis 1 as well. I guess you just dislike the series.

  30. RogerioFM says:

    Regardless of all that, this is a pretty fun game, the gameplay is excellent and the levels very well designed. I recommend to those who like FPS, it’s not Deus Ex, or other brainy FPSs, its just brainless fun, and it excedes at that. Sure, I like my Dear Esther’s, my Amnesias, System shock 2 or Thiefs. But sometimes you just play a game to have fun, like the old doom games.

  31. wazups2x says:

    Crysis 3 uses VERTICAL FOV. So that mean at 1920×1080 when you set the FOV in Crysis 3 to 80 it’s actually around 115 horizontal FOV.

    Basically, 80 is PLENTY high.

    59 vertical FOV = 90 horizontal FOV

    link to rjdown.co.uk

  32. Arglebargle says:

    Pyscho?? Personality? Well, I guess if you are into wannabe Wolverine fan service….

  33. Screamer says:

    Alec, whichdrivers did you use? The 314.07 WHQL drivers according to nVidia add considerable better performance in Crysis 3.

  34. GreatGreyBeast says:

    Wait, THAT’s Psycho? He used to look like Jason Statham. Now he looks more like an angry Eugene Pallette.

    Actually, he looks disconcertingly like Admiral Crabbypants from the last level of Crysis 1. Did somebody get the meshes confused?

  35. goettel says:

    They could at least have hired comedian Doug Stanhope for some class-A “fucking shitpussy” dialog.

  36. ramirezfm says:

    Does it require Origin to play? I liked Crysis 2, it looked pretty pretty and the music was amazing, so I’d like to give this one a try, but if it’s Origin only then I think I’ll pass…

    • Screamer says:

      I think it can be safe to say that all EA games require Origin, especially AAAs.

    • smg77 says:

      I went to Steam and couldn’t find Crysis 3. I wonder why EA hates making money…

    • quintesse says:

      Same here. No Steam? Me no play.

  37. neofit says:

    As usual, we have to beg to know about the save system. And since FC3, about the load system. So, please, how do they work?

  38. Jamesworkshop says:

    Got a similar feeling from deus ex human revolution in reverse.

    did a crysis inspired gameplay run,

    no hacking, no social enhancer, max running, max jumping, icarus landing with punch works more or less like the airstop, max energy recharge and batteries, invisibility, mark and track for the visor tagging mode, regen health is standard anyway, (Move/Throw Heavy Objects/Recoil Compensation/Aim Stabilizer) power suit mode effectively, Damage Reduction(maximum armour)

    It was good in a way, hacking makes the game a bit too easy and after two play-throughs of hacking all the things I couldn’t do it all over again in that fashion.

  39. cunningmunki says:

    Just do what I’m doing and play Crysis 1 on Very High settings and pretend it’s Crysis 3 (presuming it’s been long enough since you last played it to completely forget the plot). It’s like playing a PS4!

    • Screamer says:

      I don’t think even a PS4 can run Crysis on Very High! :-D

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      Hey I’m glad you reminded me of this.
      Maybe I can finally run Maximum Crysis! I haven’t tried since two or three upgrades…

  40. Focksbot says:

    OK, where do I get the gig writing the plot and dialogue for these games? It sounds like a laugh. Just so long as I could use a pseudonym.

  41. Armitage says:

    Modern Warfare 4 ?

  42. Megakoresh says:

    Fappable graphics.

    Thought they should be embarrassed that it’s only in 2013 that they managed to make their super-duper to-be-benchmark game look better than 2011 DX9 Witcher 2.

    In fact I highly doubt that DX11 Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk won’t look better than whatever Crytek makes by that point, because CDPR actually know. Still know. What a PC is.

    • Low Life says:

      Yes, they should be embarrassed that it took them until their first game release after Witcher 2’s release to beat its graphics. What a disgrace.

      • Ted D. Bear says:

        Your comment cracked me up for some reason. Thank you for that.
        I also hope nobody tells the poor guy that CDPR is doing console versions of their games, too.

    • Wut The Melon says:

      There’s a difference between great art design (which TW2 definitely had, Crysis 2 was arguably a bit dull in that department and I’ve hardly seen enough of Crysis 3 to judge that game) and good graphical capabilities of the engine (= the number of graphics). Crysis games generally have a lot of graphics, but I personally find the art design of many different games to be a lot more interesting

      Of course, the hope is that TW3 and Cyberpunk will (thanks to RedEngine… 3?) be able to show even more of that great art design thanks to the even better graphical capabilities of that engine.

  43. harshallgibbs says:

    upto I saw the paycheck ov $7368, I have faith …that…my sister was like actualie receiving money in their spare time online.. there neighbour had bean doing this 4 less than eighteen months and recently cleared the dept on their home and purchased a top of the range Lancia. this is where I went, http://www.pie21.com

  44. harshallgibbs says:


  45. Gargenville says:

    So much technology, so little taste.

  46. slimcarlos says:

    up to I looked at the draft that said $9303, I didn’t believe that my sister really bringing in money part-time from there new laptop.. there neighbour has been doing this 4 only 16 months and just now paid for the depts on there place and bought a brand new Mitsubishi Evo. I went here, pie21.com

  47. rockoman100 says:

    Are you insane? Yes, Prophet took himself a little to seriously at times, but Crysis 3’s plot was incredible. However, it is only sensible to think this if you enjoyed the plot of the first Crysis. I was worried that Crytek had abandoned the interesting story that Crysis 1 proposed after they seemingly abandoned that story in Crysis 2. That was not the case however, Crysis 3 fully redeemed the series by tying together the plot of both Crysis 1 and Crysis 2 in one huge epic finale. That’s what Crysis 3 really is. One huge epic finale.

  48. SabreWolf says:

    Best graphics in a game I have ever seen. Loved the opening cutscene :D