Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Crysis 3 Review: Amazing Graphics, Still a Benchmark Buster, Boring Gameplay

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the better-than-the-real-world dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 211

MojoKid writes "Let's get one thing clear up front. Crysis 3's graphics are absolutely stunning. Crytek's latest game doesn't raise the bar — it annihilates it. At the highest settings, Crysis blows Battlefield 3 out of the water, makes mincemeat of Max Payne, and makes the original Crysis — itself a graphics powerhouse — look more like the first Call of Duty. Crysis 3 really is that stunning, provided that you've got the graphics card to handle it. Like the first game, this title is capable of bringing even a high-end card to its knees. Everyone who worked in the artistic departments at Crytek, from character animations to texturing, deserves an award. The people who wrote the game's plot, on the other hand, don't. The game's design and some poor pacing decisions completely undermine what should be its greatest selling point. Crysis 3 could've been a great game but it feels like a science experiment. How much poor gameplay will players suffer through in exchange for utterly amazing graphics?"

cancel ×

211 comments

So, it's for multiplayer, and for benchmarks (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43042195)

"There's a unique Hunter Mode, in which most players start off as Cell operatives but transform into Hunters once killed, and an Assault mode in which each player only has one life." Nice to see them catching up to the modding community, snicker snort. What's next, a co-op mode? So it's not a good single player game, and it's not a good multi-player game, how many benchmarkers are out there?

Re:So, it's for multiplayer, and for benchmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042401)

I'm surprised at how many there are. I know at least one, as he puts more emphasis on how a game looks than how fun it is to play. I can't understand how anyone could find Far Cry 3 fun past the first couple of hours. Beautiful game, but not fun to play. Maybe if the CryEngine sold better, then Epic would go back to making Unreal Tournament games though.

Re:So, it's for multiplayer, and for benchmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042407)

troll?

Re:So, it's for multiplayer, and for benchmarks (0, Offtopic)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43042489)

troll?

Troll is when you say something you don't believe to piss people off and get them pasting their pathetic, predictable reactions. I almost never troll. I also almost never shrink from pasting flamebait, which are comments which I admit will have little effect other than pissing people off. However, I have noticed the influence Slashdot has over other web media, with people regularly citing opinions here as if they matter. Consequently, I would like to express my opinion that games need a strong single player if they are going to be worth paying for. Naturally, I want to do that in the most effective way possible, which is going to involve potentially inflammatory wording.

Sometimes this strategy pays off handsomely, sometimes it backfires and I get downmodded into oblivion. But if you want to be effective, you've got to have some kind of strategy, and I prefer not to use one which is deceptive. So, I say what I mean, with relatively little moderation. Some people don't like this. A lot of people, as it turns out. Some of their concerns are justified, so I do moderate myself. Which is the scary part :)

Re:So, it's for multiplayer, and for benchmarks (4, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#43042499)

The Crysis series has always been a game engine first and foremost. It's called the CryEngine. They just sell it as a game to recoup some of the R&D. I wouldn't be surprised if they just start selling the next engine directly to developers and let them make a game out of it. They obviously have the street credibility to pull that off now.

Re:So, it's for multiplayer, and for benchmarks (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43042975)

I wouldn't be surprised if they just start selling the next engine directly to developers and let them make a game out of it. They obviously have the street credibility to pull that off now.

Indeed, all they need to do is wait for some pundit to beg them to do this, and then they can do it without looking like assholes. Instead, they'll look like geniuses.

Re:So, it's for multiplayer, and for benchmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042941)

Meh, it doesn't even look that impressive. Honestly, the environment visuals look barely better than Crysis 2 from a cursory look or probably even on an actual play through. You'd probably have to stop and examine things close up, but people don't play games like that. Also the characters still look cartoony, not realistic at all.

broken metaphor (5, Funny)

bigdavex (155746) | about a year ago | (#43042197)

Crytek's latest game doesn't raise the bar — it annihilates it.

wtf? Now there's no standard to measure games?

Re:broken metaphor (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042379)

there never was.
TETRIS is still the best game ever.

Re:broken metaphor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042537)

Sure - but can it run Crysis?

Re:broken metaphor (2)

inode_buddha (576844) | about a year ago | (#43042749)

Yeah, but Tetris is so unrealistic...

my pepe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042215)

Mexican Americans don't like to go to the movies where the
dude has to wear contact lenses to make his blue eyes brown
cause don't it make my brown eyes blue....

Re:my pepe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042959)

Some Mexicans do have blue eye you know. I'm not sure why anyone would care though, it's a recessive trait; a genetic defect.

Silly question... (3, Insightful)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#43042233)

How much poor gameplay will players suffer through in exchange for utterly amazing graphics?

People will sit through literally metric shit tonnes of bad game play with poor to mediocre graphics.
I would list examples, but I feel like getting a [citation needed] response instead of listing my overly subjective choices.

Re:Silly question... (4, Funny)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year ago | (#43042283)

[citation needed]

[citation needed]

Re:Silly question... (1, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#43042331)

[link]

Re:Silly question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042371)

[link]

[citation needed]

How good is it at its best? (3, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year ago | (#43042245)

The original Crysis had some pretty brilliant sections, along with a lot of mediocre, boring or just plain terrible sections. I still haven't beaten the game, but I've played that one hostage-rescue mission a couple dozen times, along with a few of the other good parts. Seriously, if they had just stopped right when you enter the alien ship/base/whatever, it would have been a good (if a bit short) game. As it is, it's a game with levels you'll only play through once.

So, then, how good is Crysis 3 at its best? Does it get back to that wide, open-approach gameplay, where you can plan things out and approach it several different ways? Do you ever get that Predator feeling? Or is it terrible from beginning to end?

The review barely touches on this, mentioning one or two good vehicle sections, but FYI, don't bother with TFA. It's three pages full of no details. It's not a review, it's an executive summary of a review. I'll wait for better reviews and better benchmarks.

Re:How good is it at its best? (1)

sd4f (1891894) | about a year ago | (#43042405)

Crysis 1 took me a while to finish, i thought it went better towards the end, too much of the game was just running through forest from one area to another, because the mission took place there. Crysis 2, i got bored and never finished it. I always thought of crysis as dull games, just something to bring your pc to its knees. The good thing crysis 1 did was become the gaming benchmark, it had the graphics to justify it, but it spawned a period where nvidia and ati were bringing out good gpu's, getting them to compete with each other, trying to claim the crysis crown, so relatively quickly, you had acceptable gpu's which could run it quite easily.

Re:How good is it at its best? (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43042607)

First crysis' biggest problem was the fact that they hid a lot of gameplay depth in the game, but there was no easy way to access it. I first played through the game essentially never activating maximum strength, as I didn't like melee. Then I read on what suit modes things actually did and I raged at how little it was explained in game.

Warhead was awesome for me because I actually read up on mechanics before playing it. As a result it was a much better FPS experience then original for me.

Apparently maximum strength allowed you to stabilize your weapon to enable recoilless full auto even on heavier weapons. Meaning you actually could become a glass cannon with maximum strength and a high calibre automatic weapon, a tank with maximum armour and decent shotgun, or a ninja with cloak and maximum speed.

It was like they made crysis with a lot of depth and good moments, but they buried these in terrible implementation and complete lack of directing you, the player, to explore these. They tried to fix it in crysis two with "tactical options", but consolitis killed that game as you no longer could use modes other then maximum armor and cloak. Crysis 3 suffers from consolitis to even greater degree, with modes being even more limited. As a result it's stealth only on higher difficulties, and an unkillable death machine with heavy armour perk on lower ones. Lame.

One thing that does deserve honourable mention in Crysis 3 though is AI. I've never seen such smart behaviour from bots in terms of flushing and flanking. Even if they can't see you, they'll try suppressing fire and grenades at your last known position to flush you out. But it also really bugged out with those who didn't have these options, like melee mobs and pinger bots. Pinger bots were especially painfully dumb, they have missiles and yet they choose to hammer the thin invulnerable wall you're crouching behind rather then try to shoot ground near you. Smaller mobs usually toss grenades all over the vicinity to flush you out of cover.

Re:How good is it at its best? (5, Funny)

chihowa (366380) | about a year ago | (#43042699)

Meaning you actually could become a glass cannon...

Well, it looks like it's back to tvtropes [tvtropes.org] for me. There goes the rest of the night.

Re:How good is it at its best? (1)

razorshark (2843829) | about a year ago | (#43042909)

they hid a lot of gameplay depth in the game, but there was no easy way to access it. I first played through the game essentially never activating maximum strength, as I didn't like melee. Then I read on what suit modes things actually did and I raged at how little it was explained in game....Apparently maximum strength allowed you to stabilize your weapon to enable recoilless full auto even on heavier weapons.

I agree with your complaint - there are many features of the gameplay and the suit that are rarely (if ever) touched upon and the game assumes the player will discover these features as they play, which isn't always the case. One extra advantage you didn't mention with regards to maximum strength is that by stabilizing your weapon, you all but eliminate "scope sway" when using any weapon with a sniper scope. So a technique would be to equip the SCAR/AK with a silencer and sniper scope, activate max strength, lie prone and take out baddies from a distance silently and fairly easily, so long as you're hiding well.

Re:How good is it at its best? (1)

redmund (955596) | about a year ago | (#43042935)

To expand slightly on that, my favorite tactic was using stealth to sneak from bush to bush, then using a scoped and silenced SCAR. I'd line up my shot in stealth, quick switch to strength, take my now steady shot, then switch back to stealth, and move to another bush. You could snipe from quite a distance using that and never be seen.

Re:How good is it at its best? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042943)

personally I liked the original crysis, even the alien parts, but the ending was mediochre and a bit lame.And some parts were a bit tedious. But thats what an open world games is like.Crysis still looks better than 99% of games out today, even farcry3.To really enjoy the crysis games you have to play on the highest difficulty, with a high end graphic card and be good at FPS type games(on the PC).The best game out of the series was Crysis Warhead.It had more action,and was a tighter game, and the final level at the huge NK army airport, fighting both the NKs and aliens was a fantastic action filled finale to the game(one of the best game endings).

I feel pathetic (5, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#43042249)

Looking at the images in the article make me feel pathetic, because they don't look all that much better to me than the previous gen. It makes me feel like I have a deficient art sense or something. Maybe it falls into the uncanny valley, but instead of a valley, it's a plateau, where incremental improvements just don't seem any more realistic.

Here's a link to an actual graphics demo, instead of just screenshots [youtube.com] . It is impressive and I like it (I especially like the fractal plants that you can zoom in on), but ultimately it still feels like a cartoon, and in that way not any more immersive than Myst.

Re:I feel pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042323)

some of it has to do with limits on color and gamut..

Re:I feel pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042335)

I think that's got a lot to do with the use of HDR, which your eyes naturally don't see. The images look fantastic, but if you were actually standing in a physical world, you'd see things differently.

Re:I feel pathetic (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#43042423)

That's a good point, but even old black and white films look more realistic, less cartoony.

Re:I feel pathetic (2)

drkim (1559875) | about a year ago | (#43042889)

I think that's got a lot to do with the use of HDR, which your eyes naturally don't see. The images look fantastic, but if you were actually standing in a physical world, you'd see things differently.

Close. Your eyes DO see "HDR" contrast range* (up to 10,000,000:1) and brightness, but of course, most monitors can't reproduce that contrast or brightness range (they typically run about 1000:1, more or less...)

So, in HDR games, movies and photography, they sometimes squeeze the wider real-world contrast range into the narrower range of the monitor; with the net effect looking a little odd.

* Think of the brightest sunshine to the deepest black shadow

Re:I feel pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042345)

If your textures are very good and plentiful you can get away with a lot - most players won't care that much that your leaves aren't really leaves and you can't interact with them much other than perhaps displacing them.

Most players are not interested in playing with grass and leaves ;).

Re:I feel pathetic (1)

TheCycoONE (913189) | about a year ago | (#43042495)

I was thinking the same thing, screenshot of bald guy looks good, but bald guys have looked good for awhile. Hair and fabric still looks wrong like they have for years. Obviously there's a ways to go yet, and I don't have the sense or education to notice the progress. Maybe if there were side by side images and/or someone was pointing out what I should be looking at.

Re:I feel pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042521)

It's not just you, man. There's no real reason to be impressed. This is nothing like watching a movie. Every 3D rendered piece of crap ultimately looks the same and the returns are incremental, and diminishing at this point. It's a hyperbolic curve.

C'mon. Those birds look retarded. The music sounds like MIDI. When it comes down to it, you may as well play with Bryce 3D if you want to stare at 3D rendered still-lifes all day. The simple truth is that higher and higher resolutions aren't actually impressive, because the truth is that we've all seen a sphere rendered out as a perfectly smooth mesh, at mega-pixel resolution, we know how the stuff works.

People love to gush about graphic geometry, as if piling more and more vertices and triangles into a viewport is impressive, when the amount of RAM and cores doubles almost every year. Oh wow, you doubled the geometry specs, the same year that the CPU/DDR RAM doubles. Blah blah blah. The faces still look dead. The voice overs are infomercial grade engaging, and the plot lines target 14-year-old dork intellectuals. Old episodes of Star Trek are usually more engaging, and if I were to be brutally honest, I'd say that even Babylon 5 or the Lucy Lawless/Kevin Sorbo era Xena/Hercules shows are competitive with the entertainment value of most video games.

OMG, MOAR RAYTRAECING!!! OMG MORE SHADERS!!! PARTICUL SYSTEMS! YOU CAN TURN BACK-FAEC CULLING OFF!!! WAOW!

More lighting effects + high resolution texture maps + photo realistic scenes + L systems + cloth and other physics simulations + whatever else you can throw on the heap =/= A better game

Re:I feel pathetic (3, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#43042523)

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001). That the level of graphics this engine looks to be able to pull of in real time. Go ahead, Google some images and do a cross comparison.

Re:I feel pathetic (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#43042601)

Interesting point.

This link is applicable (3, Insightful)

AbRASiON (589899) | about a year ago | (#43042251)

Before the "Crysis was always a tech demo" posts, nope, Crysis 1 wasn't at all. It was a very good game with a slightly weak end 1/3

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2790285&cid=39706557 [slashdot.org]

Crysis 2 however, was an abomination and has scared me off considering Crysis 3.

Re:This link is applicable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042363)

Must disagree. I thought Crysis 1 was a terrible game, beginning to end.

As far as I'm concerned, it was eye-candy, nothing more.

Re:This link is applicable (1)

Dr Max (1696200) | about a year ago | (#43042509)

first cyrsis was good (for me), the world was so open you could tackle missions any way you want (which is personally what i loved) now they funnel you down a few points and put invisible walls everywhere (which completely ruins the illusion of having a super suit).

Re:This link is applicable (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43042617)

I liked Crysis 1, a great game but it had its problems. I loved Warhead, it was also a great game that fixed most of the original's problems.

I hated the crysis 2, which was yet another dumbed down consolitis-ridden shooter on rails with minimal buttons because "must be able to play on controller".

Crysis 3 is too close to crysis 2 for comfort for me.

Re:This link is applicable (1)

sd4f (1891894) | about a year ago | (#43042425)

I thought crysis 1 was a somewhat weak game with a slightly stronger ending. Once i left the alien space ship or whatever, I thought the game got better. No doubt it had incredibly good graphics for the time.

Re:This link is applicable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042769)

They dumbed Crysis 2 down for the console crowd.

Still irrelevant (1, Flamebait)

Khyber (864651) | about a year ago | (#43042255)

You could probably get the same stuff done on half the hardware if the engine were properly optimized and things were written closer to machine-code level.

Stick with the engine. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042261)

All the Crysis games are rubbish. Maybe they should reduce their games to something less ambitious, like a demo, to sell licenses for the engine itself. Particularly if it takes 18 months for most users' hardware to catch up with the requirements.

Re:Stick with the engine. (1)

Dr Max (1696200) | about a year ago | (#43042517)

That might even do that, if they made the crytek engine.

Re:Stick with the engine. (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | about a year ago | (#43042603)

A fair amount of games [wikipedia.org] use the same engine as Crysis 3 ... including Crysis 2 ;)

Re:Stick with the engine. (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43042619)

They already license the engine. Things like the new Mech Warrior game are made on cry engine 3.

PC Games? (-1, Troll)

DogDude (805747) | about a year ago | (#43042267)

I was astonished to find that this was a review of a PC game. I honestly had no idea that people still played PC games. Why would anybody bother spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars on fancy PC's just to play games that play better and look just as good on a $200 console? Why would somebody put themselves through that kind of hassle and expense?

Re:PC Games? (3, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year ago | (#43042297)

Why would anybody bother spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars on fancy PC's just to play games that play better and look just as good on a $200 console?

Mouse + Keyboard controls?

Sometimes a console controller just isn't convenient (or one is too old to get used to it)

Re:PC Games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042413)

Keyboard and mouse are king. Microsoft did a test that put average pc players against some of the best console players. It wasn't even a real contest, the pc players destroyed the console gamers. That is why you will never play in a server that has both.

Re:PC Games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042777)

Microsoft? Yeah right. If they did a "test", how do you explain the surface or the zune?

Re:PC Games? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042419)

You're going to respond to a troll with the most BS argument for PC gaming ever devised?
Or did you do it purposefully? If so you got me for sure.

Re:PC Games? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042375)

Playing in 1080p with a real framerate, instead of 720 with all sorts of compromises for 256 mb of video memory? Controls that are vastly superior for FPS, RTS, and other game types? Not having to pay monthly for online play, while being bombarded by ads on the dashboard?

Re:PC Games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042477)

If you're running a PC at 1080 then resolution isn't a strong argument since many/most TVs are 1080p. Now if you're running at 1920x1200 or better yet, 2560x1600 then you've got something...

Controls are the real factor.

Re:PC Games? (2)

Swarley (1795754) | about a year ago | (#43042573)

VERY few console games actually run at 1080p whether or not your TV can accommodate that resolution. Among the titles that you'd compare with Crysis 3 for PC, ZERO of them run at 1080p.

Re:PC Games? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year ago | (#43042597)

If you're running a PC at 1080 then resolution isn't a strong argument since many/most TVs are 1080p.

Console games, however, are often not. Seriously, check the box next time. Quite a lot of them run at either 720p or 1080i (God of War III, for example, can only run up to 1080i). I've seen some that don't even offer 1080i, although I can't remember which ones.

Re:PC Games? (2)

sarysa (1089739) | about a year ago | (#43042397)

I was astonished to find that this was a review of a PC game. I honestly had no idea that people still played PC games. Why would anybody bother spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars on fancy PC's just to play games that play better and look just as good on a $200 console? Why would somebody put themselves through that kind of hassle and expense?

First person shooters are simply not fun to play on a console, at least for some people. It slows them down, and for those who have gotten pretty decent at twitch motions with a mouse, it's like having a ball and chain around your right wrist.

Re:PC Games? (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about a year ago | (#43042399)

Excellent troll.

Thousands of dollars, thankyouverymuch. And games don't play better or look just as good on a console. There isn't a single console on the market that actually renders HD content. (Well, maybe the WiiU. I haven't checked that one.) They upscale. They can't even do a true 1280x720 and I'm playing at a real 7680x1440. And I don't know how anyone plays FPS games with those little nub-sticks. I can use whatever control system works best for the game I'm playing. Racing wheel, joystick, flight yoke, keyboard, mouse, even a gamepad.

Re:PC Games? (1)

issicus (2031176) | about a year ago | (#43042435)

starcraft 2. also PCs arent divided into generations.

Re:PC Games? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43042623)

Coming soon to a PS4 near you. Probably :(.

Re:PC Games? (1)

BanHammor (2587175) | about a year ago | (#43042467)

Well, a $200 console that has graphics just as good won't be on the market until 4 years later, games now are more backward-compatible than ever, you don't have to purchase Xbox Live, the gamepad is still beaten by the mouse+keyboard, and that's pretty much it.

Re:PC Games? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year ago | (#43042475)

I was astonished to find that this was a post from someone who uses slashdot. I honestly had no idea that many slashdot users even bothered with console games. Why would anybody bother spending money on locked down, DRM'd to hell boxes with inferior IO, when they make sufficient money to play FPS on the best platform available: one they probably already have an instance or two of in the house already thanks to the nature of their employment. A few hundred bucks on a video card vs the cost of a games-dedicated black box, tv (one that doesn't lag), controllers, network subscriptions, and overpriced game discs is a no brainer.

Re:PC Games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042483)

Why would anybody bother spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars on fancy PC's just to play games that play better and look just as good on a $200 console?

The graphics cards on modern gaming PCs are much better than the aging consoles currently on the market.
>Xbox 360 : 6 years old
>PS 3 : 6 years old

Re:PC Games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042535)

mod parent as troll

Re:PC Games? (1)

Dr Max (1696200) | about a year ago | (#43042545)

"to play games that play better and look just as good on a $200 console?"

Oh you have no idea do you? if it was so comparable how come if they put pc players, and console players in the same multiplayer game, the pc players mop the floor with console player? Hint it has something do to with all the extra resolution, better input devices, and speed/smoothness of the machine. Besides a pc does a lot more than a console, and its easily upgradeable.

Re:PC Games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042567)

Why would anybody bother spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars on fancy PC's

Chances are you need a PC either way. Normal PC + console is usually more than gaming PC with no console.

and look just as good on a $200 console?

They often don't. Unless the console was recently released or the game's graphics aren't very good to begin with, the game on the console is usually on medium settings at best.

I've seen no $200 consoles that focused on graphics. The Xbox 360 and PS3 were both more than that. Furthermore, if you don't care about graphics that much (which I don't), you can get a good computer for less than $600.

Re:PC Games? (1)

Dunge (922521) | about a year ago | (#43042761)

You live 5 years in the past dude

Re:PC Games? (1)

letherial (1302031) | about a year ago | (#43042783)

controllers suck, i hate FPS with controllers, there are a few games that are ok, but FPS games realy suck.
graphics are significantly better, when did xbox come out, 1800's? the computer world has far surpassed that shitty piece of hardware
Computers can multitask, i can play a game and switch over to surf the web, switch back to game or whatever
I dont need to deal with Fucking disks, i hate them and they hate me
I am not locked down, modding on pc can make a game so much more interesting after vanilla runs its course,
If your a pirate then PC is the way to go
Most decent games hit the PC as well
Video cards to play practically every game, you dont need a high end card to play a game...unless your a dumb developer...like crysis
Computers in itself are mutli functional and can do a variety of things, what can your xbox do? not much, play dvds and some video formats, they are not all that impressive
Computers are honestly rather fun to put together, its not a hassle, i love the smell of a newly motherboard and the acid wash...of course i will admit that its not normal and possibly not healthy.

YES (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042269)

I don't play games much, but those are the first realistic game graphics that I have ever seen!

The best review of Crysis I've read (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year ago | (#43042289)

"It has a lot of Graphics".

Re:The best review of Crysis I've read (2)

issicus (2031176) | about a year ago | (#43042615)

"It has all of the graphics"

Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042291)

People who focus solely on graphics are idiots. Fucking stupid idiots. Idiots that should be slain with an M10 keyboard.

Games are for having fun. 8/16 Bit games are more fun than most modern graphic monsters.
If I want to see realistic graphics I would play meatspace aka THE REAL LIFE. Not even Crysis 100 can beat those graphics.
Or watch a dumb movie.

Re:Idiots (3, Funny)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year ago | (#43042339)

If I want to see realistic graphics I would play meatspace aka THE REAL LIFE. Not even Crysis 100 can beat those graphics.

Yeah, I prefer to look at the alien Ceph in real life too. They are far more realistic-looking than the in-game ones.

Re:Idiots (0)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43042629)

Then you could re-enact all those hentai tentacle rape fantasies in real life.

Re:Idiots (4, Insightful)

aXis100 (690904) | about a year ago | (#43042455)

Borderlands is a great example where interesting graphics are far more effective than hyper-realistic graphics.

The rotoscoping/cartoon effect in borderlands is used really well, and even though they are low fidelity the styling more than makes up for it. Plus you dont need such a high-end card because high resolutions are less important.

Interesting artistic style and good gameplay/story/humour will always trump eye candy.

Great graphics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042309)

I watched some HD Youtube videos of Crysis 3 at max settings. Sure, the graphics are great from an engineering perspective, but artistically? All they seem to have done is made it look as realistic as possible. Where's the imagination?

Also, the article linked mentions the composer deserves an award. Sorry, but all I heard were "music effects" rather than any sort of soundtrack. Maybe I was watching the wrong videos...?

Re:Great graphics? (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#43042387)

I watched some HD Youtube videos of Crysis 3 at max settings. Sure, the graphics are great from an engineering perspective, but artistically? All they seem to have done is made it look as realistic as possible. Where's the imagination?

Also, the article linked mentions the composer deserves an award. Sorry, but all I heard were "music effects" rather than any sort of soundtrack. Maybe I was watching the wrong videos...?

That's the problem. Creating super high resolution graphics is strictly a technical issue. With a little knowledge, anyone can do it. Actually coming up with a compelling/interesting story line requires a lot of creativity, and that is a talent few people have. It's the same reason why movies have a gazillion dollars worth of special effects but the movie sucks.

Does it run on Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042317)

if not... .

But I can't buy it on Steam! (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about a year ago | (#43042319)

I'll just have to wait until they finish with all of their DLC and sell a "kitchen sink" edition for half price. Too bad, 'cause I've got a pair of 4gb GTX 680 video cards and three 2560x1440 monitors just waiting to be worked hard.

Yeah, I'm sure I'll just buy the DVD version eventually but they'd already have my money if they sold it on Steam.

Re:But I can't buy it on Steam! (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year ago | (#43042733)

by then you're a year out from when they can the multiplayer servers.. why the hell do you want it on steam so badly? steam doesn't make the game 'better'. if anything it's an annoyance.

Re:But I can't buy it on Steam! (2)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about a year ago | (#43042811)

I consider it the opposite of an annoyance. I don't need to keep track of DVDs to shove in the drive to play a game I've already installed. I get nearly instant purchase satisfaction. Certainly faster than driving half an hour each way to the nearest retail outlet. I can reinstall on a new machine without having to find the disc and key and without worrying about whether I have another activation left.

I really don't understand how you can find that more annoying than dealing with physical media.

Re:But I can't buy it on Steam! (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43042857)

Because in a year he'll pay 15.99 for crysis 3, all 8 dlc packs and some steam special perks.

This is far better than 59.99 now for the game with its bugs before they patch the shit that should never have been released.

Thanks (2)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#43042329)

Just decided to actually do something non-boring with the time.

Oh stop the hyperbole already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042347)

Games all look the same. Oh wow, look, these four pixels here, out of a few million, totally blow out of the water the four pixels from before! Self-important idiots.

Platform games (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042351)

In the 1980's all the games turned into platform games. Major companies with big budgets would buy a license to a movie, make a platform game, then market it heavily. It became such a production line, that they had their own toolkits and engines to churn out the latest platform game. The shops would only sell the marketed games and the world became bland and boring and the market collapsed.

Every single game looks like a first person shooter these days! FFS, I'm soooo bored, it's like watching the same story over and over again. What are they autistic?? And the reviews, they compare the micro detail of FPS #1 vs FPS #2 because the macro detail is the same: people running around, jumping from platforms shooting stuff.

Never mind the people writing the plot, what about an original idea to begin with!?

Chopped Salad (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | about a year ago | (#43042353)

I was 'eh until the helicopter over the vegetation bit. That much geometry changing at once looked great.

But I was unimpressed with Crysis 1/2 gameplay, who's signed up to license the engine so far?

everyone 's a critic (1)

mynis01 (2448882) | about a year ago | (#43042437)

The multiplayer and graphics combined are good enough to make me feel like my purchase was warranted, and ill probably purchase dlc in the future too. With all the crappy console ports out there that don't even come close to tapping modern hardware, i'd say this purchase is a no brainer for anyone with a machine that can handle it.

No manual saves (5, Insightful)

razorshark (2843829) | about a year ago | (#43042439)

One thing that pisses me off with a lot of modern games such as Crysis 3 (and this also includes Crysis 2) is that they rely entirely on autosaving at checkpoints. No ability to quicksave at any point at all. Autosaves are fine, but the removal of traditional manual save functionality is such a huge step backwards it affects enjoyment for me. This was highly irritating in Crysis 2 because the game likes to highlight various tactics in infiltrating a base (assault, stealth, hybrid approach), but the lack of an ability to make your own saves when desired really screws up the ability to perform stealth properly. Mess it up and you'll find yourself throwing a grenade at your feet in order to force a reload of the last checkpoint, at which point you'll need to start the whole area again. Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Dishonored have the ability to create manual saves at any area (and multiple saves too) and this makes performing stealth far more desirable. You can save several times during your progress and if you stuff up, just reload the last point which might be most of the way through a section, as opposed to a checkpoint which would only occur at the beginning and the end.

But I need not ramble, because graphics do not appeal much anymore on their own if the gameplay is boring. Have them together, great, but graphics are nothing without some meat.

Re:No manual saves (3, Interesting)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#43042583)

I like this. It makes the game more challenging. You can't just safe at your own opportune moment. It changes your playing strategy. If you have a "save anywhere" game, that outright eliminates the need for cautious play.

Re:No manual saves (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about a year ago | (#43042695)

I like this. It makes the game more challenging. You can't just safe at your own opportune moment.

Good for you. Get a game with save anywhere... and don't use it.

For the rest of us, who have actual lives, being forced to replay ten minutes of the game because it wouldn't let us save when we had to deal with something in that real life fscking sucks donkey ass and is one of the reasons why I play less and less games these days.

Re:No manual saves (2, Interesting)

razorshark (2843829) | about a year ago | (#43042711)

If you want to play like this though, you can already with a game which features manual saves. Impose that restriction on yourself if you want, but having it imposed for everyone is ridiculous.

You still have to be cautious on a save anywhere game, it's just less frustrating if you fuck up. Moreso, a game with only checkpoints discourages experimentation. If it takes a single mistake to ruin 5 minutes of stealth gameplay and you can't save during that time to make a mistake less annoying, you'll end up gravitating towards just giving up and taking a regular assault approach to any situation because odds are you'll survive anyway and it's quicker. Less fun possibly, but it's also less time to get to the next checkpoint.

It's kinda like Apple not allowing side-loading of apps on their iDevices. They might argue it's "better" because of increased security, but some of us prefer the traditional means of installing apps from 3rd-parthy sources. We would like the OPTION at least; let people stick to the App store if they want, but at least enable 3rd-party installs as part of the OS. There's no technical reason why this cannot be done except for knowing what's best apparently. The game goes for these games which don't allow manual saves in my opinion. Having the option allows more freedom, and those who prefer to be constrained can do so themselves rather than being forced artificially.

(Not trying to Apple bash here for cheap points - just seemed like an appropriate comparison at the time).

Re:No manual saves (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042789)

Quicksaves were amazing in the previous Max Payne games. You save before entering a room then figure out the most badass way to kill everyone. Miss a shot? Reload and try again. Checkpoints are terrible. Especially when you aren't ready for one and it saves your game for you with 2 bullets and one bar of health.

It's the pacing, stupid (2)

Manatra (948767) | about a year ago | (#43042525)

Many of Crysis 3's gameplay problems can be traced to the pacing, as this review pointed out. The strange part is that Crytek largely got the pacing right in the previous two games. Crysis 2, for all its faults, was a brilliantly paced game. Even Yahtzee agrees on that point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0MblIn-lVc [youtube.com]

I would trade a plot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042549)

...for decent pacing and non-moronic controls in the game. The original Crysis was pretty linear but the plot was fun. The problems were the enormous dead spots of repetitious, brain-dead game play. It felt like someone pruned a great game to fit on game consoles and that the remaining material was stretched out by overuse of player traps, psychic AI, clip brushes and weakening the player's armor and weapons. Spectacular levels, though.

I heard Crysis 2 is great but I will have to take someone's word for it, because they trashed the player controls so badly that it's unplayable. With this legacy, Crysis 3 has nowhere to go but up. :)

Re:I would trade a plot... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43042647)

The problem was the complete and utter lack of explanation of depth of gameplay. I suffered from it in game 1.

Reality was that you actually had 3 main ways of approaching any problem, and several combinations of these. But it was never told. Instead, the default way was "either cloak and stalk or maximum armour and decent gun". They didn't even tell you that maximum strength let you stabilize the extremely heavy full auto weapons for glass cannon approach, or that you could use maximum speed to play like ninjas of action movies if you wanted to. A real shame.

Does this one run on linux? (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about a year ago | (#43042611)

Does this run on linux or do I have to install Windows 8.

Re:Does this one run on linux? (1)

Dunge (922521) | about a year ago | (#43042765)

Better install Windows if you want to play any game.

Where's the realtime raytracing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042737)

Why on earth haven't we moved onto realtime raytracing?

It seems to me like just about all of the game engines out there are simply hacks piled onto hacks piled onto hacks. In the end, you get something moderately usable and playable, but it's not scalable at all. The maximum quality that engine is capable of is as good as the game will ever look, period.

If games were built using ray tracers instead, then you're only ever limited quality wise to what the host hardware can reasonably pull off at a given resolution. You want more indirect lighting bounces? Refractive ray depth? Reflective ray depth? More subdivisions on your soft area shadows? Fine, those are all sliders that you can tweak (or let the game tweak them for you), but your hardware may or may not be able to maintain an adequately playable frame rate if you're exceeding the maximum recommended threshold.

Since ray tracers scale a hell of a lot better then modern day game engines, there's always an excuse to run out and buy the latest NVIDIA or AMD GPU when some new breakthrough is made on the hardware end that allows OpenCL and CUDA code to run that much more faster. You could have a ray tracer game written today that looks OK now, but looks jaw-droppingly fantastic 3 years in the future because a ray tracer will scale up almost indefinitely. They're also embarrassingly parallel too, we've already got a few "almost realtime" ray tracers out there for CG work (Octane Renderer comes to mind), but those are far too realistic/accurate for realtime use as a gaming engine.

So seriously, why are people still busy obsessing over clever little tricks to make your modern day game engine run a little faster or look a little better?

Isn't it about time that we stop treating GPUs as GPUs (in the OpenGL/Direct X sense) and more like general purpose processors, and make the leap to realtime ray tracing?

Re:Where's the realtime raytracing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042767)

cause it takes a core 2 quad to look only slightly better than quake 3

So, it's just a demo product (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042757)

So Crysis 3 is just a demo CryEngine3 which you pay for. I guess it's great if you are a game developer. It sucks if you are a game player since the gameplay sucks.

There was a time when game programmers didn't need realistic graphics to make an interesting, captivating, and fun game.

Graphics will catch up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43042797)

Being on the bleeding edge of graphics is essentially meaningless. In a few years this could easily become the default standard. If it can make high-end graphic cards cry, what about the average person's machine?, will it make it outright explode?, (no, not literally).

Great story, great gameplay, great characters, these are the things people will remember fondly. Personally, I still love Ocarina of Time, which used about a dozen polygons per character. I still love Megaman X, in all of it's 16-bit glory. I NEVER hear anyone fondling reminiscing over Far Cry, even the original, which came out like a decade ago.

Crysis (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about a year ago | (#43042817)

I agree with TFS. I have about 1000 to 5000 hours of playing Crysis 1-2 behind my belt and the only video games I have ever spent more than 50 hours on in my life is Crysis and The Godfather, Godfather made it with about 200 hours playing time total until I got bored.

Crysis 3 sound great but I am trying to cut down on it ;-)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...