I have painfully slow DSL so it's going to be another 7 hours before I can play. Seems like some mixed review out in the wild. So I was more curious how people were enjoying it? The short single player sounds like a drag but I hear its god damn gorgeous on the PC. (My poor 560 ti)

I would like to know too. There is almost no community buzz about this game despite the fact that it looks very promising. Also, Crysis 2 was great despite being much maligned by people who wanted more Crysis 1.

The IGN review was pretty positive (surprising right?) but they said the single-player was much improved due to the fantastic voice-acting and surprisingly good story/characters. Multiplayer isn't anything revolutionary but looks like a good distraction if you're dying for a sci-fi shooter (me).

Arthur Gies review is one to check out if you know where he's coming from. I don't think he was that big of a Crysis 1 guy but I know he loves 2.

http://www.polygon.com/game/crysis-3/2898

Surely there will be a quick look even though it doesn't show up on Coming up on Giant Bomb.

@artisanbreads: Huh, sounds conflicting with the IGN review, but I do tend to agree with Arthur more frequently. The way he talks about the hunter multiplayer mode though sounds really cool

As someone who liked Crysis 1&2 but has had enough, it looks like I'll pass on this one as it looks like it's pretty standard watered-down Crysis fare. Looks beautiful though.

I don't know about mixed reviews. It's got a 79 on Metacritic. Reviews seem pretty positive. Just not overwhelmingly so.

The days we live in. If it doesn't get 9's it sucks to a lot of people.

He didn't say it sucked though unless you are generalizing about a bigger population. Anyways, that game always looked like something to pick up for cheaper even though I'm tempted to have it push my PC.

Yeah that's basically where I'm at too. Gotta see how far dual 670's can go

Yeah just generalizing sorry. You see it around.

Matt Rorie has a review up on GameSpy: http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/crysis-3/1227439p1.html (Spoiler: Flawed but fun. 4 out 5 stars.)

Edit: can't seem to link the url properly. You might need to copy/paste.

I played Crysis 2 on the Xbox before Crysis 1, thought it was alright. But then I played 1 and I was blown away.. 2 and, by the looks of it, 3, are just small time gallery shooters compared to that first game, it was amazing on the xbox.

I want to see it on my PC, but probably not $60 worth. I'll wait til I can snag it somewhere in the $30-$40 range.

Brad just replied me on Twitter he's working on the QL. Would be cool if it's the PC version!

Crysis 3 seems more like a expansion pack then a full sequel since the campaign is only like 5 hours long. Loved the first Crysis but hate the changes they made to the second game like more linear gameplay the Fov gun model on the PC version is way to big and taking maximum speed off the suit made Alcatraz way to slow.Most importantly fighting the aliens in Crysis 2 was so boring I'm definitely skipping this one.

I'm playing it currently. The reviews are pretty accurate depending on where your priorities lie when purchasing a game. If your looking for a visual treat this game delivers. My pc is not super high performance (7970 3gig, I5-3570k) but it usually eat's up most games no problem. Crysis 3 is one of the few games lately to really push my config where I had to dumb down settings to get the framerates I am comfortable with. I'm one of the few people who felt Crysis 2 was superior to 1 when it came to how they presented the scenarios you would encounter. Very similar to Halo. So 3's approach being somewhere in the middle is a plus. Plenty of reviews are stating that the bow breaks the gameplay. I would agree if you play on the default difficulties but if you pump it up to the one without aiming reticules then the bow becomes much more balanced. Especially considering when cloaked you no longer see the sight on the bow. It forced me to line up shots much more carefully because otherwise I was missing quite consistently. The story is no better or worse then most writing in current FPS. If your expecting Bioshock story and dialog then look elsewhere. Like others I do feel that a 5 to 6 hour campaign is a big knock on what would otherwise be another great entry in the Crysis series. Let's face it there are certain games where even though multiplayer is provided most have no intention of experiencing it. The Crysis series is one of those games for me that I purchase because of the single player campaign only. So folks should base their purchase on exactly what reviews are stating if they speak to your sensibilities on what constitutes value. For me it's single player length, story, gameplay and visuals in that order. Might be worth day one for some but for me it would be a no. Only reason I did pre-purchase is because greenman gaming gives great preorder discounts for digital downloads so I paid a little over 40 dollars which is fine for a day one purchase in my mind.

Most reviews says otherwise, that its in fact a turn back into Crysis open world/tactical stuff. Actually reading reviews is a cool thing to do.

The beta looked beautiful (more shader effects than dynamic lighting though) and it seems to be on par or harder on my PC than Crysis 2 with the DX11 patch and hi-res textures (which I can't run on Ultra). The sound has improved as well.

The style just seems really bland and it will never be "art" which I guess all games have to be these days.

The only appeal to me seems to be that it's the only sci-fi FPS around but all Crysis games have slow and awkward movement (turning seems to accelerate and have momentum) which really kills the fun.

I'm excited to get my copy. I enjoyed 1 and 2 pretty equally so the merger of both is appealing. Kinda sucks that the bow almost sounds too good but I will most definitely play on the higher difficulties. My rig ran the beta pretty well with the adjusted specs and still looked just amazing.

Just waiting for my boxed copy that probably doesn't even have a cd in it....... Hey a 20 dollar promo credit is worth a 2 day wait.

I'll pick this up once it's around $30. I want to push my rig but not that much.

@artisanbreads said:

But publications give out 9s so easily that if something has a 79 average, it is sort of mediocre.

The gaming review scale is still busted because it is reserving the bottom 5 numbers for games that lack basic technical competency. It would be like if films reserved the bottom 2 stars only for films that are out of focus the whole time, or where the editing is so bad that it cuts people off mid-line-delivery, or where the audio is mixed terribly and every line delivery is drowned out by sound effects. Instead, doing all that shit satisfactorily really just earns you enough respect that you get into mainstream movie theaters and actually get reviewed by critics. Your film could still easily get 0.5 stars for being absolute dreck, even though it got the technical stuff right.

Conversely, in games, if your game merely shows up without significant bugs, even if it is completely unoriginal and bland, it probably gets a 5-6. Tons of shitty, amateurish, low budget games exist that deserve to get the numbers below 5, but most publications don't have enough staff to review every game in existence, so there's a selective bias where they choose to only spend their time reviewing the games that are most likely to be good, through a combination of knowing what projects have a sufficient budget, talented dev teams, and which projects publishers are showing confidence in. By only reviewing the good games that people kind of already expect to be good, you only ever see low scores for colossal fuckups like Steel Battalion: Heavy Armor, and Aliens: Colonial Marines.

I'm sure you're already aware of all this, but still, my point stands, 79 is kind of mediocre. Pretend the video game scale starts at 5, with 5 being a zero star rating, basically. That means the Metacritic average really equates to Crysis 3 being about a 3-star game, out of a possible 5 stars. Positive, but not overwhelmingly so.

I hear the campaign is like 5 hours long, and that bums me out, especially after spending 18 hours to beat Dead Space 3. I remember Crysis 2 being at least 8 hours on a first run (before you learn to speedrun the game without killing anything essentially).

I'll still get it, but I'll probably wait. I'm going to beat Crysis 1 and The Darkness 2 in the meantime.

From what I've seen of the game the story looks absolutely abysmal and the campaign looks even more stripped down than Crysis 2's. I didn't like Crysis 2 so won't bother with this. Also, as has been pointed out, 70s range in the gaming press means the game is shit. As much as one wants to decry the rating scale every major site starts at 7, it's their way of telling you the game isn't good without appearing to be overly negative (EA is too big to annoy without repercussions).

The game is pretty good. I liked Crysis 2 and this seems like a way bigger, more expansive version of that.

Take that for what you will.

The Darkness II is incredibly short, but it's bursting with great ideas (even if some of the better stuff from the first game doesn't carry over).

I really enjoyed my time with that game.

I was boring but looked very good on the Xbox, could not bring myself to finish it. I had barely gotten the car and was like DONE. BORING Written all over it.

Looks a bit boring and generic, still I'd like to try. How do you think this will run with GTX 580 on 1920x1200?

Looks like another streamlined aka dumbed down and funneled version of Crysis, no thanks

But atleast theres tall grass yet again, i really like the grass.

The grass and the faces and the bow.

Otherwise its like Crysis 2 with better graphics.

Kinda boring.

I'm actually having a great time with it. Been playing through using stealth and the bow as much as possible. I was pretty bored with Crysis 2 early on in the game, but haven't really had that problem with Crysis 3. Game timer shows me right at 5 hours, think I just went into Chapter 4, so I'm already over what most peoples' play times have been I guess. I tend to run around and search every nook and cranny and also replay the same areas over and over to try out different techniques tho, so that's probably why.

Just finished it, about the lenght id say its average but thats fine i guess.

Did enjoy the ending which is not what i was expecting, the story is silly but thats to be expected i think.

<p>Just to check back in its been a week my DSL has finally delivered the goods. It's ok. I'm maybe having a bit of a hard time getting into to it. It has some great set Pieces but over all the whole nano suit thing is not grabbing me like in past games. I think I'm getting close to the end, so I will stick with it.</p>

Just got it and love it. Hunter mode is a blast lol.

Sadly I only have an AMD Athlon II x4 640 and Radeon HD 6770, so I get problems when running everything on high. However, even with the textures on medium/high and everything else on low it's one of the best looking games I've played.

I liked the game a lot on PC, but the story is absolute shit. At least in crysis 1 the setting was interesting, and I always like aliens vs military type stuff, this one the story was just fucking terrible.

The game had some really cool environments and I especially liked the large open areas at the end. The bow was fun but also felt like a bit of a crutch. If they were going to allow you to shoot it while cloaked they should have made the arrows all break when used and given more complexity to aiming it, accounting for arrow drop or wind or causing it to sway a lot more.

Also Origin says I played 10 hours as of right now when i finished it, i played on hard.

I think it's quite good. A surprisingly strong ending too that wraps up the trilogy. Certainly didn't expect that.