This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

does crysis 3 suck?

#11nonexistingheroPosted 4/27/2014 5:41:02 AM
kingoffps posted...
Crysis 2 and 3 are solid shooters. Nothing spectacular, and the sense of scope from the first Crysis is gone. But they are competent games and are by no means bad.

Crysis 1 (and to an extent Warhead) was much better.


Thing is, you're comparing them to modern FPS. In terms of gameplay & design they're just downright terrible compared to most pre-2005 FPS games.
---
Read the mania: http://www.fanfiction.net/~nonexistinghero
In SA2, it's Super Sonic and Hyper Shadow.
#12Kokuei05Posted 4/27/2014 5:47:53 AM
I enjoyed Crysis 1 until after the tank level. Then I lost interest. Crysis 2 couldn't hold my interest for more than 30 minutes. Crysis 3 seems more similar to 2.
---
Xeon x3220 @ 3.3Ghz [367*9] | Hyper 212 EVO | GA-EP45-UD3L | Mushkin 4GB DDR2-800 | EA-430W | 1GB 560 AC Twin Turbo II | WD 500 GB | AL1916W | G400s | HTF600-S
#13triple sPosted 4/27/2014 6:38:19 AM
The whole Crysis series to me is boring. It's like Crytek is incapable of implementing fun into their games. I had more fun with Homefront than I did the entire Crysis series.
---
GT:Triple S 06
Steam ID:triples22
#14TropicMoon10Posted 4/27/2014 7:01:48 AM
Crysis is one of the better single player shooters nowadays - It's the best shooter as far as the "military" theme goes imo. At least the futuristic theme shakes things up.

I'm playing through Crysis 1 at the moment and I'm enjoying it. I can't play 10 minutes of CoD or Medal of Honor without getting bored to tears.
---
http://i.imgur.com/N9lTE.jpg
#15mjc0961Posted 4/27/2014 7:04:03 AM
Bmvc1 posted...
All Crysis games suck. They look good doing it, though.

---
sirtonne posted...
This topic is so stupid I had to slap my wife.
#16Kokuei05Posted 4/27/2014 7:22:19 AM
triple s posted...
The whole Crysis series to me is boring. It's like Crytek is incapable of implementing fun into their games. I had more fun with Homefront than I did the entire Crysis series.


Homefront is pretty bad too. There are so many situations in that game where you're literally just waiting for the next objective and you're just fighting waves of enemies or invisible walls.
---
Xeon x3220 @ 3.3Ghz [367*9] | Hyper 212 EVO | GA-EP45-UD3L | Mushkin 4GB DDR2-800 | EA-430W | 1GB 560 AC Twin Turbo II | WD 500 GB | AL1916W | G400s | HTF600-S
#17Xeeh_BitzPosted 4/27/2014 8:16:19 AM
Bmvc1 posted...
All Crysis games suck. They look good doing it, though.


Yeah, it's like a hot chick in a vegetative state.
---
3770K | 780 Ti x 2
Steam: Xeeh Origin: TurboPeasant
#18AsucaHayashiPosted 4/27/2014 8:20:47 AM
1 > 3 > 2

i liked the fact that 3 was much more open than 2... even though you were still being funneled towards your objective you at least had more options of reaching said objective sorta like tomb raider compared to uncharted.
---
PC hardware doesn't need to match console hardware in price when PC gamers save literal thousands from the software they buy.
http://i.imgur.com/9Yv0R2Z.jpg
#19biohazard1775Posted 4/27/2014 8:39:55 AM
Warhead > 1 > 3 > 2

3 has some larger maps compared to 2 but it still doesn't give you that feel of being like the Predator the original games gave you.
---
http://i.imgur.com/AuuOUVo.png
#20cody4783Posted 4/27/2014 9:01:11 AM
I enjoyed 3 slightly more than 2, if only because the environments were a bit more interesting and they *tried* to get back some of the more natural/jungle vibe of the original Crysis... But even so, both games pale in comparison to the original. Still $5-10 sale fodder for me, wouldn't pay much more than that.

Honestly though, I played through 3 just a few months ago and I seriously couldn't tell you any specific parts about the story or particular levels. I vaguely remember a few bits here and there, but nothing was spectacular enough to stick with me (well, aside from how many goddamn times Sykes can crash a f***ing VTOL in one game).
---
PC: http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn233/cody4783/cody4783.jpg