I would but... Origin.

First match was kinda fun but I've never played Crysis before. Is the first game worth it on gameplay alone? It sounds like it comes with the pre-orders...

The beta left me indifferent.

Having played Crysis 2 multiplayer a decent amount on 360, I can say its biggest flaw was the latency issues. Getting a match that felt quicker than 500ms ping was exceedingly rare. Now, having played the Crysis 3 multiplayer on PC, I'm definitely pleased. After fixing some compatibility issues through downloading the most recent Nvidia beta drivers specifically for the Crysis 3 beta, it runs very smooth and feels good. Much like in 2, my favorite job in 3 is running around with the shotgun in Crash Site. Shooting faces and throwing shields at people is a good chunk of fun. The streamlined armor and stealth aspect is nice too, makes things a bit more accessible. I had fun with it, I'll more than likely pick it up if not for the campaign. Preferably not on origin, though...

It wont be on anywhere but Origin on PC.

The console version is almost a joke when compared to the pc version.

Hunter mode is kinda fun, I remember this Halo custom game I use to play called predator where there were two predators that were invisible and tried to take down the rest of the players. The only difference is you didn't respawn in the custom game and it seemed to work a lot better.

Really enjoyed crash site mode. Hunter felt a little pointless but the map is actually super well designed, shame you only realise this after a few rounds. The faster climbing animation and well placed ledges/breaks between trees and buildings mean that the best players are jumping around all over the place and it looks and feels cool as hell.

Game also runs well, not perfect but definitely good enough.

Running a 680m and i73630qm and I get around 40FPS on all high settings, objects on very high, with SMAAx2 (or whatever the third lowest AA is) and v-sync at 1920x1080. It looks nice too, although I was a little confused by the lack of a 'toggle DX11 or DX9' option until I saw the minimum requirements... Gonna try out the new Nvidia drivers to see if I can get a boost. They claim 68% increase for some cards which would let me hit a constant 60....

I wish there was a better breakdown of what each graphical setting did though. Curious to see what I'm missing out on between high and very high.

How does Crytek have all these office buildings but continually create a super mediocre tech demo? Do these games actually sell? I cant imagine Crysis 1 or 2 passing over 2 million

I wasn't too hot on the Crysis multiplayer in the past and this hasn't really changed my mind since it's more or less the same thing.

How are they tech demos? Crysis 1 and 2 are as much a game as any other shooter, and I'd argue more than the CoD games.

I gave the xbox 360 version another chance yesterday and I can't stand it, the frame rate is horrible and the graphics looks muddy as hell.

@WarlordPayne: Crysis isnt known for being good

Crysis is known for testing and checking state of graphics

When people speak of the game it is not highly

I didn't mess around with the beta for long enough but the Hunters seemed to dominate with their invisibility cloaks. Do the soldiers have anything to counter this besides the snipers?

@Nilazz said:

The console version is almost a joke when compared to the pc version.

Seriously. I tried both just for kicks and it's crazy to think that's how the majority of players will experience the game. I've made the mistake in the past of playing some of the best looking games on console.

@DeathbyYeti said:

@WarlordPayne: Crysis isnt known for being good

Crysis is known for testing and checking state of graphics

When people speak of the game it is not highly

Considering Crysis 1 has a 91 on Metacritic and Crysis 2 has an 86 I'd argue that quite a few people think pretty highly of them. Go watch the Xbox 360 Crysis 1 quick look if you want to hear Brad and Vinny speak pretty highly of it.

@dgtlty: The soldiers are just supposed to hide and try to survive, they're supposed to be outgunned. And with the motion sensors you can hear the hunter coming so you can try and get the drop on him before he finds you.

@WarlordPayne: Every game this generation has a good standing on metacritic and Brad and Vinny tend to like many games even with their flaws

If you ask people who play the game that dont review it for a living have no standard or expectations from Crysis

maybe if I said Crysis is arguably a bad series itll be more comforting

@DeathbyYeti: I don't need comfort. I'm not particularly invested in the franchise and not terribly interested in Crysis 3, I was just pointing out that you were wrong about the series. However, since you don't seem interested in letting facts affect your opinion I'll let it go here.

Holy shit. Went in to the beta not expecting much really, and came out with a pulse of 190 and hyped as hell. Crash site + Hunter-mode is the absolute best multiplayer moment i've had in a long while!

@WarlordPayne: "professional reviews" are not fact

I take the word of a bunch of other people who play games and know what they are instead of metacritic saying "9.0, it's okay"

Fired it up for a few matches and got bored. Also I hope this is a much older build of the game, it's not really any better looking than BF3 (worse in a number of ways) but runs pretty poorly by comparison.

@DeathbyYeti said:

How does Crytek have all these office buildings but continually create a super mediocre tech demo? Do these games actually sell? I cant imagine Crysis 1 or 2 passing over 2 million

Crysis 1 sold something like 3 million copies. They're also much like Epic in that a lot of their cash come from the licensing side of things, hence the tech demo like nature of their games (similar to the Unreal series).

@Imsorrymsjackson said:

No thanks, fucking FPS games can fuck off for a couple of years.

Such anger.

@Davvyk said:

@Imsorrymsjackson said:

No thanks, fucking FPS games can fuck off for a couple of years.

Such anger.

Now if I could just take that anger and concept it out into a new first person shooter title...

@DeathbyYeti said:

@WarlordPayne: Crysis isnt known for being good

Crysis is known for testing and checking state of graphics

When people speak of the game it is not highly

Yeah, right. You don´t exactly sound reasonable, but I´m still gonna say this:

Crysis 1 & 2, while pretty different games, are both very good shooters. Very well designed encounters and great sandbox design (although not open world), great weapons and some genuinely interesting AI behavior- I´d say you don´t find this sort of game very often. The Crysis series deserves both the high scores from the press and the praise it gets from players. But if you want, then please continue to live in complete ignorance.

As for Crysis 3: It seems like this time the consoles aren´t exactly up to the task.. played it last night on PS3 and the framerate was pretty bad. Seems like a decent multiplayer game though.

@Superfriend:Ive seen plenty of discussion and from what I played of the game, no one really cares except for the people on this board

Crysis 1 was Far Cry mixed with mild super suit that slowly turned into nothing special with AI that would spot you from a good mile away and can detect you even if you were sneaking with stealth activated

Crysis 2 you could sneak through many an encounter by having a good stealth "perk" and staying near a wall

The multiplayer in Crysis also has never been anything special

I dont know why I am the unreasonable one when majority seems to think the game is poor and my opinion of what I have played of both is also the same

I've really been enjoying the beta on PS3. I lost interest in Crysis 2 mp because I seemed to get insta-killed a lot even after getting the jump on an opponent; not sure if it was lag or what. I haven't noticed anything like that in the beta, it feels very balanced and there's never any question about why you were killed.

Hunter mode is reminiscent of AvP's multiplayer and I think that's awesome. I like how the flow of the maps gives you this sense of control to move through them freely without anything slowing you down; it really makes it stand out from other games.

As a Turok fan, I love the addition of the bow. It's a challenge to use effectively but so satisfying when you get that perfect headshot. It's such a natural companion to the nano suit and it's cool that even though you're capped at level 10 in the beta, you can "prestige" to unlock the bow in Crash Site mode.

Visually, I have to agree that it doesn't impress like Crysis 2 did on consoles. It looks like it's on very low settings and the pop-in is often really bad. I'm pretty much sold, especially with the preorder bonuses that are out there, but it'd be nice if the final release looked better.

I remember playing the Crysis 2 demo a lot and I thought it was really good. Still didn't get me to buy it, though. But I haven't bought an FPS in ages.

@DeathbyYeti said:

@WarlordPayne: Every game this generation has a good standing on metacritic and Brad and Vinny tend to like many games even with their flaws

If you ask people who play the game that dont review it for a living have no standard or expectations from Crysis

maybe if I said Crysis is arguably a bad series itll be more comforting

"Every game this generation"....BAHAHAHAH! Are you even thinking about what you are writing?

You know, I would much rather listen to Brad and Vinny's opinions on things like this. You know why they like many games despite their "flaws"? It is because they love video games, and can still find the fun in most of them. Maybe you should try the same, instead of taking this smug, dismissive stance like you are some sort of smarter person for being so cynical about every game.

And, honestly, I bought Crysis over five years ago when it first came out, and to this day I still fire it up and play through it. Where are these super negative opinions about the game coming from anyway? I've heard Jeff's opinion, and he's not saying the game is bad by any means. He's saying that he doesn't like the sandbox-style level design, which is a perfectly valid opinion to have.

I've kind of enjoyed what I've played of it, but it has some pretty big issues.

I like the vtols that you can jump on. I know it's kind of silly but it does add a little touch of dynamism to the maps, even if it's rarely all that useful. I also think the game modes are ok, and the exploding pods adds a silly little twist to CoDs Headquarters mode. I like the ground pound move, but it's not all that useful again.

But I found it a bit tough to get into. The hud and other information being presented to you is just really cluttered and busy, and it took me a long time to be able to make sense of it quickly, and so much of it seems extraneous. It bothers me that the maps are designed with massive "open walls" that you can go out of and then be given a 10 second ultimatum to get back on the map, espcially when it spawned me facing the outside of the map, and then I got stuck outside the boundary. Part of me feels that it's not great design for it to even be possible to leave the map, but if it is possible, it could at least be a bit more clearly signposted - it's not a problem I ever have with Wasteland in MW2.

The biggest problem though, tbh, is that the shooting just doesn't feel all that satisfying. That may be because I'm just not very good at the game I suppose, but I just feel like other players move a bit too fast to get a good bead on them sometimes. And even once I'd gotten used to that they just feel a bit weak, to me.

I dunno, I doubt I'll be playing it, I guess.

I stopped playing multiplayer shooters years ago, but I'm concerned about this frame rate talk. Loved the campaign in 2 so I hope it's not any worse than that.

You can prestige in the beta?! Hell yeah!

@MURDERSMASH: Brad loves every game and will tell how it's the best (insert word/genre here) he has ever seen/played and give it a 5 star review and then if he hasnt tried it or doesnt like it openly talk it down on the bombcast or other place. I listen to people who put more time into the game instead of checking it out so they can make content for a website.

The opinions on Crysis do not stem from the owners of this website but from the people who played the actual game that I've interacted with and on the internet. Apparently this is the only board on the internet where everyone likes Crysis

As for this generation of games, most noteworthy games are a media covered, multimillion dollar project that are too expensive to fail. I can not think of a game with "AAA" status that has influenced games other than being a expensive game that people have been told is "important" and "refined." Games now dont want you to press forward, they want you to buy more, so games become more simplistic and mediocre while becoming slightly shinier

@DeathbyYeti said:

@Superfriend:Ive seen plenty of discussion and from what I played of the game, no one really cares except for the people on this board

Crysis 1 was Far Cry mixed with mild super suit that slowly turned into nothing special with AI that would spot you from a good mile away and can detect you even if you were sneaking with stealth activated

Crysis 2 you could sneak through many an encounter by having a good stealth "perk" and staying near a wall

The multiplayer in Crysis also has never been anything special

I dont know why I am the unreasonable one when majority seems to think the game is poor and my opinion of what I have played of both is also the same

You're not alone. I clearly remember the days when Crysis 1 came out on PC and all anyone could talk of was the graphics. Most critics at the time said the gameplay is alright if not a little stale and most everyone lamented how the latter half of the game was a lot worse than the beginning due to less sneaking in a jungle and more full on combat. On top of that it was also known to be horrible optimized at the time of release meaning even the most powerful machines out at the time could not properly run it will all settings completely maxed out.

Crysis 2 was heavily bashed for being linear as opposed to an open world game again.

It doesn't matter what Metacritic says - the series has always been known as a mediocre shooter with nice graphics. None of it is anything to write home about.

@DeathbyYeti said:

@MURDERSMASH: Brad loves every game and will tell how it's the best (insert word/genre here) he has ever seen/played and give it a 5 star review and then if he hasnt tried it or doesnt like it openly talk it down on the bombcast or other place. I listen to people who put more time into the game instead of checking it out so they can make content for a website.

The opinions on Crysis do not stem from the owners of this website but from the people who played the actual game that I've interacted with and on the internet. Apparently this is the only board on the internet where everyone likes Crysis

As for this generation of games, most noteworthy games are a media covered, multimillion dollar project that are too expensive to fail. I can not think of a game with "AAA" status that has influenced games other than being a expensive game that people have been told is "important" and "refined." Games now dont want you to press forward, they want you to buy more, so games become more simplistic and mediocre while becoming slightly shinier

Hyperbole, hand-waving dismissal of reviewers you disagree with, anecdotal evidence, and conspiracy theories. Come on, man. If you're going to make an argument for why Crysis isn't good, you have to do better than this.

First off, it's important to consider the angle in which game reviewers actually write the reviews. You're trying to do this, and that's cool. It also makes sense when you're attempting to purchase a game, and need advice. After all, they play through the entire campaign, mess around with the multiplayer for a while, and then judge it based on everything within that. Wouldn't most people do the same thing when they play a game? Not many people are buying games like Crysis to play it for 100+ hours and to pick apart every little flaw and imbalance in the process. Reviewers don't review the game from that angle either, so it only makes sense to trust reviewers in this case.

The reason you all should at least consider the Metacritic score is for an at-a-glance aggregate summary of all the reviews. What really matters, however, is what the reviews actually say, and guess what the ~60 reviews actually have to say about the game? Amazing graphics, crazy and emergent gunplay thanks in part to the nanosuit powers and destructible open-ended environments, action-packed single player, and big multiplayer battles (this is before CoD 4 really took off, i'm assuming). I would say that this is a pretty fair assessment of the game, considering that the vast majority of the reviews said the same things.

Something else to consider with Crysis. Have you seen this video series? This guy is a beast. Clearly, if Crysis had poor gameplay mechanics, he wouldn't be able to do all of this. Also if i'm not mistaken, he's playing it ironman-style on the hardest difficulty (Delta mode), where you no longer get a crosshair, enemies have more armor, and the enemies only speak Korean so us ignorant English-speaking people can't understand them. This points towards an interesting "New Game+"-style of design that a lot of games don't do these days. My favorite part in that first vid is around 34 minutes in, where he crashes a truck into a camp of dudes, blows up a jeep, and it flies into a tree. LOL!

I also want to know more about why you're so dismissive of Brad's reviews. What did you think of his Resident Evil 6 review? What about Medal of Honor: Warfighter? Steel Battallion? Kinect Star Wars? Velvet Assassin? I Am Alive? Lost Planet 2? New Super Mario Bros. U? And that's just off the top of my head, and/or a quick glance through a couple pages of low review scores. Clearly, he doesn't give every game a 5 star review, nor has he tried to tell us all how "it's the best XYZ game/genre he's ever played". You ever think that maybe, just maybe, a lot of the games he ends up reviewing and/or liking really ARE that good?

@MURDERSMASH:Replying to this person is providing him with more credibility than he deserves.

@Humanity said:

Crysis 2 was heavily bashed for being linear as opposed to an open world game again.

It doesn't matter what Metacritic says - the series has always been known as a mediocre shooter with nice graphics. None of it is anything to write home about.

Yeah, right. You´re gonna play the "was heavily bashed on the internet"-angle.. and at the same time you say Metacritic doesn´t matter?!

But you know what, if you are going to argue that way, I´m gonna play the "the people who hate it are a vocal minority"-card. How about that one, hah!

Look, I know people have different tastes and all that, and there are people out there who like different styles of shooters. Crysis 1 is not perfect and some of it, like the AI, doesn´t hold up all that well. But it still is a pretty good game- and far from a mediocre one, even 5 years after its release. It deserves the scores it got and even nowadays there are very few games out on PC that do the whole sandbox shooting thing as well as Crysis. You want to play an extremely mediocre shooter? Try the last Wolfenstein game. THAT is mediocre.

Oh and to all you people who say Crysis was an "open world" game: You have no idea what you are talking about. Here´s the lowdown:

FarCry 1, Crysis 1 & 2 : NOT open world games - sandbox shooters with relatively open level design (at times)

FarCry 2 & 3 : open world games

The Crysis MP is nothing like COD. The super human capabilities make the difference. The only problem was the horrible lag!

@MURDERSMASH: Summary pros and cons on Metacritic would be a better function for reviews instead of everyone bringing out a number and showing it off and looking for keywords is a valid point

As for the combat, I guess the vocal minority wins me over because after 3 hours of Crysis gameplay I found myself agreeing with them be special even if others can dwell deeper into it much like a hack and slash game or a fighting game.

And for Brad I guess I just disagree with the games he likes because most of the things he enjoys are pretty simple and popular. I was going to point to games like Uncharted 3 and La Noire for being reviews I couldnt agree with but then the same argument of the games like Lost Planet 2 and Velvet Assassin can be brought back up. There is no real way to defend myself against not liking Brad reviews because he reviewed those examples. Two different ends of the spectrum where one is lauded openly for being not well made games while lacking the attributes the others have with plenty of polish, budget, and marketing.

Do I have access to a bow immediately? If not, then no thanks. It's the only thing that has me intrigued at all about the game.

Just played about three hours into the 360 version of the game and I gotta say it's really fun! Never playing a Crysis game before I didn't know what to expect, but having the abilities of going into stealth or having extra armor and being able to jump high in the air and do the ground slam move is great.