Crysis 3 official, release date is 2013

As a poster put it in crydev forums:
http://www.crydev.net/viewtopic.php?p=965813#p965813

The colorpalette seems to be a good representation of the quality in the crysis series.

Number 1 had a great variety of colors, beautiful scenery and a sunny look.
Number 2 had a variety of colors, overlayed with grey and brown, giving it a cheap plastic look.
And finally Number 3 has 2 colors, green and blue.
Click to expand...

Seems to be reminicsent of BF3 art direction
 
its like crysis 2 with a bit of FAR CRY thrown in, give him a bow and arrow just like RAMBO 3.

I'm guessing the vegetion is there because it's 5 years later and NY is being reclaimed by nature... except this is wrong, you wouldn't see all those shrubs till at least 10 years later.

good idea though, because it makes the game look better, more colour, less concrete
 
Mal X said:
its like crysis 2 with a bit of FAR CRY thrown in, give him a bow and arrow just like RAMBO 3.

I'm guessing the vegetion is there because it's 5 years later and NY is being reclaimed by nature... except this is wrong, you wouldn't see all those shrubs till at least 10 years later.

good idea though, because it makes the game look better, more colour, less concrete
Click to expand...


It's set 20 ish years later.
 
Jak3 Mac said:
Awesome! Can't wait! ...just need to finish playing #2
Click to expand...

Same here. I've mixed feelings about the 3rd installment - the second is taking me longer as I don;t feel the same draw as I did the first time. One of the guys over on Bit-tech wrote

"I think the main criticism of Far Cry was that a whole bunch of really stupid monsters turned up and murdered what was building into a really unique and exciting shooter before collectively peeing on it's corpse. In Crysis again a promising shooter against an interesting foe in a brilliant environment was clubbed to death by the arrival of alien invaders from planet DERP.

What Crytek have done wrong is the same thing they have always done wrong with the Cry games, which is not play to the games strengths. The strength of the games was the environment. They didn't have to bring in weird and wacky monsters to make the game fun, because hunting soldiers and mercs through those environments was already some of the best and most atmospheric gameplay to be found. They could have made a WW2 shooter in the Crysis environment and it would have felt original, that's how good the game world was.

Scary as it is to say, I think the biggest weakness of Crytek is they don't know when to stop being creative."

which for me summed up the whole experience.
 
HaggisUK said:
It's a shame how this series has played out after it starting out so promising.
Click to expand...

yea, but this 3rd game looks better, because the semi rain forest environment gives it great atmosphere.... it's a shame it's still Aliens though, because you cant beat Human based AI.

this looks like the same maps with vegetation/ humidity added, or maps that weren't used in the 2nd game, as such it's probably finished already.... what a ripoff.
 
MeMeMeMe said:
Which names?
Click to expand...


Prophet and Nomad.

All these therories about how Prophet is still alive because of the suit, even though we've seen him blow his own brains out at the start of Crysis 2.

When probably all thats happened is the press relases has put "Prophet" instead of "Nomad" in it as the name of the lead character in Crysis three.
 
With Crysis2 dx11 + HighRes Texturepack, I ran the game on lowest graphics setting. This made the gameplay smooth and enjoyable and graphics were crisp.
I turned the setting all the way to ultra and didn't notice any further graphical improvements other than putting lots of stress on my system (Q6600, 5850) and slowing down the gameplay with lots of frame rate dipping.

I think Crysis3 should actually be called Crysis2:Warhead.
 
WingZero30 said:
With Crysis2 dx11 + HighRes Texturepack, I ran the game on lowest graphics setting. This made the gameplay smooth and enjoyable and graphics were crisp.
I turned the setting all the way to ultra and didn't notice any further graphical improvements other than putting lots of stress on my system (Q6600, 5850) and slowing down the gameplay with lots of frame rate dipping.

I think Crysis3 should actually be called Crysis2:Warhead.
Click to expand...

yes it's definitely an Expansion isn't it, bunch of ripoff merchants, it's too much work to relocate it to Paris or London.... they just modify the existing maps
 
WingZero30 said:
With Crysis2 dx11 + HighRes Texturepack, I ran the game on lowest graphics setting. This made the gameplay smooth and enjoyable and graphics were crisp.
I turned the setting all the way to ultra and didn't notice any further graphical improvements other than putting lots of stress on my system (Q6600, 5850) and slowing down the gameplay with lots of frame rate dipping.

I think Crysis3 should actually be called Crysis2:Warhead.
Click to expand...

Dx11 patch was laughable, performance divebombed as they applied tessellation to virtually everything even if it made no difference to the look of the object, you had oil drums, tree stumps, concrete barriers etc all with retarded levels of geometry that just hammered graphics cards. Its like they just developed some application that slapped more geometry into every object in a scene and said "job done".

http://techreport.com/articles.x/21404/2

^ says it all about tessellation in crysis 2.

The higher res textures were more noticable it has to be said though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom