Trilogy/Quadroligy Review and Comparisson
Just finished Crysis 3 a small while back and have been meaning to get to a review for it...
So we're doing that now. Talking about, reviewing and comparing all the titles in the Crysis trilogy. Four titles actually for those that include Warhead as a separate title rather than an expansion-ish stand alone addition. Crysis has been after all as a franchise giving us top end experiences and pushing technology along with first person shooter standards for almost 6 years now (end of 2007 - 2013) and deserves it's own thorough look. And as we do it here, we get as thorough as it gets before it becomes a quantum theory molecular level kind of thorough.
Crysis has not gone unnoticed one bit in the gaming industry. Either by haters, or fans, and from both ends of the gaming spectrum including PC's and Consoles, at least one of the Crysis titles has been subject for a lot of back and forth debating for most gamers if not all gamers of our time.
I being no different and having now completed the trilogy, am ready to dig deep inside the Crysis titles and meet the heart that beats beneath it all face to face.
It all began...
It all began back in the day of 2007, Crytek, known for FarCry and praised for that title by most PC first-person-shooter gamers, announced their new title, Crysis! The suit alone for me was awesome to look at and couldn't wait for this new FPS title from the guys that brought one of the most lush environments ever for the genre. The screenshots of the forests and sea had me sold.
The game featured what I liked most about Farcry, the environment. The next thing it had to deliver in was story. I wasn't fond of the Farcry tale to be honest. After the first night event in the game I lost interest for some reason and I lost all immersion I felt up to that point.
Worst case scenario was that Crysis was to repeat the same pattern. Even so, how bad could it be? The suit alone was bad-ass and you were not stranded on an island but instead on a mission on an island (of some sort as far as we could gather). It already looked more intriguing for a story. When the nanosuit trailer came out as well for what seemed to be a super soldier (or Post Human Warrior as referred to from Crysis) I was hyped. The idea of the suit and what it could do was an amazing addition to FPS games that had never been done before. It was that something new that we all wanted.
Finally, a company had the guts to come out and gamble with a mechanic that no one was sure how successful it would have become. With visuals being the core of an FPS game and with Crysis bringing us completely new extremes in that area, the chances for them in ruining it all were beginning to look slim.
Finally, a company had the guts to come out and gamble with a mechanic that no one was sure how successful it would have become. With visuals being the core of an FPS game and with Crysis bringing us completely new extremes in that area, the chances for them in ruining it all were beginning to look slim.
Crysis and Crysis Warhead
Crytek delivered! Crysis instantly became a new favourite, a title I was to experience and play through repeatedly on many occasions in the years that followed. With Doom 3 and Quake 4 being the only other modern FPS titles that I loved, in a large way for being nostalgic trips filled with a lot of new and satisfying eye candy and quality, Crysis went from a 3rd favourite title to almost 1st in no time as I grew to love it more and more. And yes, I love the eye candy and unlike most I do not use the phrase as something negative. I would rather not play games at all than subject my eyes to visual horridness.
Surely at the time I enjoyed other FPS titles as well, but as good as they were time proved of them to be forgettable if anything else, much less titles that I would play through a second time. Good experiences none the less, but it was the best the genre had to offer and not what I wanted and looked for. With Doom 3 being the top of the list of most loved single player FPS games after the years 2000, and Quake 4 a farther second behind, Crysis did what no other title had done for me till then. Although it's like comparing apples and oranges since the themes of these titles are so different, the truth is that in the end I spent much more of my personal time on Crysis overall than D3 (the real D3) and Q4.
 |
| The tropical location remains to be of the most loved level designs for the franchise. |
It starts with your team jumping off of a plane. You "crash" land late-night (almost dawn) in what is even in the dark an environment with visuals nothing short of stunning. Moments later, you are rushing around a jungle at night with flash-lights trying to regroup with your team that is screaming!
After that, it's just uphill as it keeps getting better with each added scene.
After that, it's just uphill as it keeps getting better with each added scene.
The story seems unclear, and that is what's great about it as the element of horror is one not absent from this title. Kind of like that old classic film Predator. In the 1987 film, Predator, a military team on a rescue mission is dropped at location in late night to almost dawn conditions, and from there on the story branches off into something completely different. We are hinted of the direction of the film early on and throughout the film and that is another element which makes it a successful sci-fi horror for it's time. A true classic which was simply done right, later spawning and giving way to many similar ideas.
Same conditions are found in the opening of Crysis and the similarities in general are more than less. The story itself is very different indeed, and yet underlined with the same form and foundation. The proven formula from Predator was used and it brought successful results again. Not saying that Crytek actually ripped off Predator or that it was the core of all their reference and influence (it could be), but in more ways than not Crysis for me was pretty much a re-skinned Predator film. Aliens are included in both stories. In Crysis though we get to be the Predator. Super-soldiers with nano-suits that also have cloaking? What more can you ask for? They give you the tools to be the perfect hunter. And to top this feeling off, Crysis 3 made you an even more successful hunter with that new bow of yours. But I am getting ahead of myself now.
 |
| Such visuals and eye-candy is really what made all the difference for Crysis. It was the future of FPS graphics for the time. |
Heading into the game moments later dawn comes and the sun rises. The visuals that are already beyond anything, especially for 2007, get even more amazing and all of a sudden you are on a lush tropical location camouflaging in the trees with Predator-like nanosuit technology. Crytek has a thing for the jungle it seems and they are doing it right. Especially this time around.
The story leads on into some strange occurrences, and before you now it, bam, Aliens!
This to that, the story evolves without too much detail being put in how it is portrayed (cutscenes, videos, etc) which on one end makes it in some ways more immersive, and in other ways less. Both methods are good in my opinion and the Crysis trilogy or Quadrology includes both methods. Again, getting ahead of myslf.
The story ends with a pretty epic boss fight for it's time. It felt epic and so did it's conclusion and yeah, it was epic. The game then left you with an epic feeling and an epic want to play it again, and the taste of more epic action to come in the future. Simply, epic!
Hats off to the developers, Crytek made the best things from Farcry better, got rid of the bad, introduced a great story (wasn't till after that time when invasions and aliens became so cliché that even Indiana Jones met some!?) and pulled it all off behind a great and innovative interface for a bad-ass super-soldier controlled by you, Nomad!
 |
| Crysis Warhead didn't shy away from being even more destructive than the original with its faster pace. |
Some may like the Nomad approach more. In one way it creates more immersion since being faceless pays off to make you feel as though you are the person within the suit. They didn't even give Nomad a voice (if I remember correctly) to keep true to this feeling and it worked. Adding a character takes some of that specific immersion away, on the other hand it adds more opportunities for story immersion and also better character development. The fine line that one needs to strike here is to make the hero likeable by all those that play with him. And Psycho being, well, psycho but with morals, was a great formula to connect you to the character. You gain some you lose some but either way the franchise ends ups offering both styles for both tastes. Kudos to that. For me it was a better choice for Warhead. It took the story farther than before in this way and was able to have more character development on all ends (from your end and also towards you) that really did make for a better lore with regards to an FPS game. It wasn't on RPG standards, but that is why it's a First Person Shooter and not a Role Playing Game.
All in all from visuals to soundtrack, to the whole sandbox-style gameplay, to the story, and to everything else as well, both titles were an (here it comes) epic experience. Warhead feeling more of an expansion in some ways, it was still never the less a standalone game based on the same yet a little modified cry-engine 2.Crysis and Crysis Warhead at this point delivered in more fronts than I expected and what one lacked the other offered and the other way round. It was sentimentally a 10/10 for me. Looking at it objectively one may perhaps drop it to a 9/10, but no lower than that. It includes so much more than what an FPS title should include and does everything that the genre stands for right. Especially for it's time. It set the bar so high that all generations of FPS games after this felt like improvements and not ground-breaking games, including it's own sequel Crysis 2.
Crysis 2
The year is 2011, 3 years later and Crytek announces it's new title. The sequel to the games that melted so many PC's some years ago. I personally was excited with the news, and simply couldn't wait. It felt like it had been ages since the first title. No sequel could ever come soon enough, and 3 years was far too long a wait.
Having heard from Crytek in past such comments as the following: "we usually like to leave a project that we have created on to other hands and head off to create another in a new direction", with reference to Farcry 2, I was quite convinced that even hoping for a Crysis 2 title was hopeless. I never even bothered to ask "what if?"
The news hence came as a surprise. Their new take to be in New York was indeed a new direction too after all. I was at first a little disappointed. The best thing about Crysis was about to be taken away from the franchise. The lush tropical setting. But, I took a deep breath and decided to give it a chance. If anything, I was curious to see how a super-soldier in a nanosuit wrecks havoc in a city, and after playing the multiplayer demo I was again sold. The graphics, the responsiveness, the altered mechanics and with an overall improved first person shooter gameplay and experience, the title was already a must buy for me. And I had only played multiplater. So in a way it was a gamble to warm up to it so quickly, but in the end it paid off. They lived up to my expectations, perhaps in some areas even surpassed them a little too, and it was instantly a favourite yet once again.
 |
| Multiplayer in Crysis 2 is a huge improvement and a very satisfying experience. |
Crysis 2, despite the more negative views from many groups of individuals, was still as open of a sandbox first person shooter as Crysis 1 ever was. In some ways it felt less, in others more. Although the terrain and the seemingly "linear" map designs of C2 didn't help it to seem this way, it still had more true tactical options than C1 and Warhead ever did.
 |
| Crysis 2 offers so many options I literally played almost every tactical location on average in at least 3 completely different approaches. Mixing and matching tactics also made me able to experience some of my more cherished scenes in over 5 different experiences each at least |
Everyone wants change, yet when it comes many don't like it?
Or, we are divided into groups that want change and groups that don't perhaps? Those that do not want change will never be satisfied with any change and of course those that want change will never be satisfied with similarities, spawning comments such as "re-skinned games" or "games with just new eye-candy". In which case you can't please everyone and some group will be always complaining. Who knows which of the two is true. End result is the same. People have a thing for complaining, especially on successful developers.
By the way, what is wrong with eye candy? Seriously, what?
The new use of the visor is another proof of change that brought us another level of strategy to the game with giving the ability to assess an environment or location and planning on the objective or objectives given. This is an added feature, like giving a game nightvision goggles. Of course this makes things easier, that is also by comparison why the army creates technology, to make things easier. If this is making something mainstream for some gamers, then they should go play something that gives you nothing but a set of shorts and a knife. I wont even get into explaining how wrong they are.
Once again with following that whole Predator/hunter idea, C2 made you feel more just like that. This was the essence of the game to begin with so I turn and look the other way when I hear opinions on it being a bad thing that the game is stealth-oriented. News flash, the moment you throw cloak into the equation from as far back as the first title, you are putting stealth and hunting into the game. Those that didn't like the way this feature was used in C2 obviously missed the point to the first titles as well.
Oh, and the notion "the game forces you to play a specific way" is nothing short of silly. Every game is made to be played in a specific way. Again, you want that freedom of choice go play a role playing game (which is still limited when compared to human imagination and is also played in a specific 3 to 4 ways at most) and not a first person shooter. It doesn't hurt to learn our genres and what each game is made for.
Following once more the steps of the first title, you are given control of a character that has no voice or face so as to immerse you more into the role. The story was interestingly detailed, very rich, and it really put you into it with cutscenes, evolving characters, and everything else needed to make a great story. One of the best narrations I have ever seen in a first person shooter. There were new quick time events (if that is what they are called) where you needed to press specific buttons to play your way through specific things. I found those especially fitting to the story. And although some elements felt repeated (your suit powering down) it was actually still very fitting to the overall feeling of the nanosuit evolving. They truly handled that part in the best way possible to make more sense in how you become part Ceph part human, along with everything else.
The ending was (even without really having a boss to confront) also epic as was the whole last map. I mean come on, Central Park on air, simply wicked. The AI, action and enemy types were also a huge improvement, especially on the side of the Ceph. The arsenal of alien types, ships, etc, really made the invasion and the Ceph feel more ominous. I wouldn't mind the squid-like matrix-looking aliens from the first titles making an appearance in the game, but I definitely didn't want a title with them and only them alone in it. To be honest, it was probably something that disappointed me a little on the first titles. The nanosuit vs alien combat was good, but not as good as it could be. In terms of story, we find out in C3 as well why we don't see those alien types any more and what their purpose was, making even more sense as well in terms of lore to patch up any holes.
 |
| No more jungles as we enter the concrete of New York City. Even so the level design and aesthetic appeal for Crysis 2 is impressive and beautiful, portraying an invaded New York as best as possible. |
After seeing the level design itself I realised this was probably a little ahead of its time as an idea, but it would have been cool to have even more tactical options of the like. Breaking through a wall into a nearby room and taking the defensive out from there, or anything else that can come to mind.
When the DX11 came out the graphics were immensely better than Crysis. But then people complained that it isn't the graphics that make a game good. Haters gonna hate no matter what, and that is the end to that. Nothing ever pleases them.
Crysis 2 once again marked up to a 10/10 for me. I am aware of some of it's objective shortcomings being able to justify a 8/10 in some areas and 9/10 in others. All in all these are deserved ratings. In terms of graphics it was 10/10 even with the initial so called "console-port" and "dumbed down" graphics. In the end they still delivered in melting a good range of PC's with the DX11 update bringing us the best visuals of 2011 for PC. I replayed through Crysis 2 so many times on all difficulties including Post Human Warrior, and it was a blast. A true single player FPS title that I grew to love and jump into for stealth or assault action time and time again.
Crysis 3
Did I have complaints with Crysis 2?
No, I did not.
Was it missing elements the original portrayed? Yes it did. And this was still not a reason to dislike the title neither have any less fun with it.
In truth I didn't want Crysis and Crysis Warhead with new graphics. I wanted a new game. I can play Crysis and Crysis Warhead any time I want to experience it again, and Crysis 2 whenever I want to enjoy the new direction of the game which was simply great.
I am baffled over how some people neglect to realise that a sequel does not mean that you cannot play the prequels. Kind of the same argument as backward compatibility on consoles. That is however a mater for another article on consoles generally. There are many that apparently do not think in the same way as I do and have many complaints for the simple reason that Crysis 2 as a sequel is different from the older titles. And I mean many.
Me? Like I said, I loved all three titles. They had their differences, and that was good, thus also adding to more variety. If you don't know where I am going with this you will now.
Crysis 3, naturally, being a blend of both C1 and C2, is again clearly one of my favourite first person shooters ever! Crytek did it again!
The developers above all showed that they really listened to the feedback from gamers since C2. Unlike other big developers that people still like to defend (ahremBLIZZARDhhmmmrg), who not only don't listen to fans but even go as far as trolling them with rainbow cow levels in Diablo 3 to force their opinion on those that PAID for their product and the very same people that made them rich, Crytek tried to listen, improve and deliver. Seems a little biased to me to be honest but that is modern gamers I guess.
Customer feedback from Crytek is truly evident in the design of Crysis 3, which for me is a masterpiece of a game that simply concluded the trilogy superbly and added a third and final (we think) instalment with which I can now safely say I have a favourite FPS franchise that I have warmed up to more than any other title ever released.
Crytek took out of Crysis 3 the things mostly complained about in Crysis 2, kept the things that many others really liked and improved on them, blended the map designs to be a union of all past titles for those that preferred the originals, and created a more obvious sandbox gameplay as well. All this with adding some completely new elements as well such as the improved visor and new visor hack and of course the predator bow, creating the perfect and best fps-hunter game to date.
 |
| The level designs, both in detail and functionality, are by far the best in the Crysis franchise! |
The story in Crysis 3 in its form takes more after the Crysis 2 model, as well as the Warhead character approach. Like Warhead, Crysis 3 gives you control of a face and voice now with Prophet. Funny how your partner is also the returned-veteran slightly overweight version of Psycho. It took me around 10.5 hours to complete (recorded time in the campaign menu is 10hrs and 24 mins) and it seemed again like a very fitting length for a first person shooter. I did of course play it on Post Human Warrior difficulty (the hardest) straight away, and above all I wasn't rushing. Surely on a different difficulty, or with rushing to the main objective to finish the game as fast as possible, the game lasts 7 hours at most (1 hour for each level) and at times even as low as 6 or even 5 hrs. Complaints on the campaign length from people that practice this kind of gameplay and do not take the time to enjoy it are ridiculous. Quake 1 can be completed in under 20 minutes. So all such complaints are void of reason.
Even for a rushed gameplay state, 5 hrs is a good length for a campaign.
I didn't listen to all recordings neither read all the logs and extras that I unlocked with data-pads etc, during the game. I foresee a good extra 30 mins going off into that alone. The quick time events were much much less, and just enough to still give that nice feeling of doing or going through something different in the story mode to fit in to the whole plot, whilst the character development, animations and voice acting were perfect, the story lived up to the cinematic narration of Crysis 2 and also felt more interactive than before with a little less idle time than in C2. The game brings a complete story experience with few if any holes in it and seldom left me bored. It takes you through to some really cool boss fights, and the ending is perhaps one of the best ways to finish off the trilogy. I give it extra points also for the more sentimental side to the story that it now has. It made me want to play the game again, but it also made me want to play all 4 titles through from beginning to end.
 |
| Everything about the game visually is out of this planet. Yes, we like eye-candy, it tastes sweet. |
One of the first alien encounters in the game is really fun, as is the next encounter in the grass fields. You are as much hunted as you are the hunter, and this kind of gameplay has you really pumping some adrenalin. Especially if you play through the game on your first try on Post Human Warrior like I did. It was worth the thrill.
 |
| Being hunted and hunting in the grass... this was quite an entertaining experience. |
Lastly the graphics have been really improved even more than the DX11 version of C2. My PC can play C2 on maximum, full res textures and DX11, but when it comes to C3, this changes. Of all the around 10 graphical setting options, 7 of them are on low on my PC, 1 is medium, and 2 are Very High (shaders being one of those 2). And this still looks better than Crysis 2. Pump a little more detail into it sacrificing some frames here and there and the quality keeps improving. On maximum the game is simply gorgeous, and although a little clunky on my PC still playable and even more, still enjoyable (from time to time). This is not a re-skinned game at all. This is by far the best Crysis title to date, in all things including story, game mechanics, level designs, and even multiplayer.
10/10 for me, because I love this franchise and the things they did wrong are simply minor. Some small bugs, like on occasion not being able to properly access the visor through the nano-suit quick menu, where you end up spinning your cursor around till it works and no I didn't have a shortcut for it it felt useless to have 3 shortcuts (visor, weapon customisation, suit customisation) and I deemed it better to simply have the middle mouse button for all (visor being the most common use for it). When it worked right it was exactly the way it was meant to be. But, aside these things, the game is at least a 9/10 for me. They achieved what they set out to achieve, especially in the visuals. Story was great, the stealth action was great as was the assault side to it, AI was imersive, the length was not too long, and I would strongly push a 10/10 for this game even though that might seem a little extreme.
There are few more things if any that I could ask from a first person shooter. And keeping in mind what kind of first person shooter this game is, I really do not see what else they could have included to it to further add to the game's style and essence. I was more than pleased. There are elements in general from the game that might be missing for some, but such elements mostly belong to other games and we should know above all what it is we are playing and what it is meant to be before we criticize. Playing a sniper game for example, called Sniper, and complaining that all you do is use a sniper, is void of logic.
 |
| In most cases, if you give in to you Predator instincts and do it right, they will never see you coming.... This is never a bad thing! |
The perfect end to a trilogy (or even series, e.g. Breaking Bad.... did it have to end by the way?) usually gives you the sense and want of going through the trilogy/series and experiencing it again. Crysis 3 did just that. Especially the ending scene. It was so sentimental I couldn't wait to pop in all the titles and play them from start to end again. Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Crysis 2 and Crysis 3. This is definitely a keeper of a collection.
The Breakdown and The Comparisons
To take a better look at what is what and how the titles evolved from 2007 to 2013, breaking them into categories and comparing them to each other is usually the way to go. Graphics, Artificial Intelligence, Gameplay (and game mechanics/interface), Level and Content Design, Story/Plot and lastly Soundtrack, are a good a team as any of categories to break a game into.Apart from my personal love for Crysis, these comparisons were also spawned as a byproduct from a lot of conversations with a certain number of individuals that might see things differently, argue pointlessly to defend perspectives that have not been well thought of, and/or hypocritical behaviours that state one thing in one argument and something else in another. Hence there will be also references to several arguments of course for certain scenarios as a means to set the record straight and do some schooling, or perhaps to clear things up for those undecided individuals that are on the line and don't know which side of it to jump onto, or even believe. God knows the Crysis franchise deserves far more success than what it got, but since I can't wave a wand around and change all that, this is the most that I can do to feel some justification for the developers at least from my part. Here goes.
Graphics
Visuals, the most important thing in a game.
Obviously graphics alone are not enough to make a game good and the other aspects of it are just as important, however even so the visuals remain to be among the most important. A game that looks disgusting when compared to the minimum visual standards in the market will be simply not playable no matter how good the gameplay is, the same way a game will not be played if it is visually impressive alone and nothing more.
 |
| Visual delight is not the worst of things to add to an experience.... |
Time spent looking at a monitor, tv, or any form of screen, should be pleasant. Especially when there is always competition out there and the same game mechanics can exist in multiple titles. Usually the one that does everything best is the one that is also the most popular, successful or perhaps just of the highest quality and hence best title of a kind (since popularity and thus success are not always a product of quality). Why wouldn't anyone want to experience the exact same thing with better and more satisfying visuals? The notion that graphics are not important was spawned by some people that could not find any other form of argument to justify their stay on some games in which they invested many hours on and could not stop playing, such a defence is not in the slightest objective. Especially when even I have come across such people that are the same ones later to hate on a new title introduced to them when the graphics are not good.
According to what game you are playing the visuals can either demand the latest technology or not. Neither of the two is right or wrong. It is simply what the game itself and at times the genre might declare as more fitting. We can safely say that a game meant for younger ages, or a game aimed at looking like a cartoon, or a browser game, etc, will have a different approach and direction in the graphics and art/design than a mature game, or a game that seeks for realism and any form of attention to detail and visually impressive effects. The initial idea behind the first evolution of gaming after all was to make more pleasing visuals for better immersion, less headaches (fortunately younger gamers will never experience what the old generation went through thanks to the weaker graphical technology of the time, able of making even a healthy person epileptic) and more clarity and quantity in every aspect on the gamers' monitor.
 |
| As far back as the first titles, Crytek delivered with high end visuals and detail. Although the older tech can be noticed in some areas, it remains a visual benchmark none the less. |
One of the largest complaints from gamers on the new titles after Crysis and Crysis Warhead was that they weren't "sandbox shooters" anymore, or that they were too linear and dumbed down. This is not true however about the titles and it is in fact the visuals and the setting in which it was all created that swayed these individuals to prefer the old titles. This is not a bad thing. Gamers treat visuals and "eye candy" as they call it as something that shouldn't effect their opinions and hence have difficulty admitting to it when it is the case.
And so it is that in one way or another people arguing this fact trap themselves in their own arguments at times to reveal the real reasons behind their opinions, at which point they resolve to simply admitting that they liked the old jungle setting better. Again, I cannot stress enough that this is not a bad reason to like the first Crysis at all. Just be honest about it and stop hiding behind this ridiculous notion that graphics are not important. Oddly enough the only time they are not important is when a given PC can't handle graphics above a certain range, or when an individual is forced to compare to a personal title that they might love and play or even be addicted to, getting defensive about it in the process. In other arguments many even go into saying that Crysis 2 is a "console port" with graphics that were not as good as the old one. A strange comment coming for a gamer that moments earlier was arguing that visuals are not important!? For those that visuals are not important, it shouldn't really matter if the graphics are tamed for consoles or even smartphones in that case!
 |
| Evident in some shots is the older tech, some geometry is surpassed and textures in far distances at times are not as clear. I remember some shots that no matter how high the graphics were the farthest mountains would lack detail (much more than seen here) giving an obvious drop of quality in the image. |
Crysis 1 does not have the better graphics of the three (marginally 4) titles. It did have more appealing visuals and settings, that much I agree on. I myself, of the two, New York or a paradise island, find the second to be a much more appealing and visually satisfying direction. Gameplay sometimes gets mixed up into the equation simply because it is more satisfying to hide around in jungles and swim in rivers and beaches. The setting affects this notion of better gameplay, but let's be real about it, it is the setting that made the gameplay work for those people (myself included) not the game mechanics/interface. The graphics and technology of Crysis was ahead of it's time and it made a much larger impression than many following titles in the genre. It was not more advanced technologically than the sequels, it was simply a much larger leap in technology for the time. We all know that as visuals improve, the leaps get smaller all the time.
 |
| Another shot where the older tech of the CryEngine 2 is evident, and still impressive even by todays standards. The resolution in detail both texture and geometry is of the obvious, but far more the lighting model and overall clarity. It was the beginning of even greater visual advancements to come. |
Crysis 2 seemed to lack in some areas when compared to the graphical power of the old Crysis, but these were intentional shortcuts (if I may) to give more render power to other elements, and only visible in a small range of areas. In general, the similarities of the two given results were very close indeed. The largest difference was that Crysis 2 handled more surfaces and gave way to more tech to be pumped into the engine, even at the lower end settings that were tailored after the current gen console capabilities. That alone is a huge technological leap though, being able to bring across such visuals on lower end systems as well. Meanwhile, the PC version, even in it's unfinished graphical version on launch, was still more detailed than console versions and overall on par with the first Crysis.
 |
| Attention to detail once again. Crysis 2 on full HD DX11 graphics takes after the Crysis name in stunning clarity and quality to even surpass it. |
The difference was small, but the flares, reflections, particle effects, and everything else in the game were top notch even for it's first release, and as good as the old in most ways. In some ways much better, and in only a few places worse (such things as update intervals on tree shadows, etc). Barely noticeable by the way. The range of results in clear textures or not varied in many occasions on all titles, Crysis, Crysis Warhead and Crysis 2. From my personal comparisons I found some parts of the old games better and some better in the new.
 |
| Tessellation... in my book one of the biggest advancements in gaming graphics the last years. This, put together with another of the biggest advancements of our time, MegaTextures, and the results should be out of this world. |
With Crysis 3, they simply went overboard for the PC and anyone that has played the game on full graphics knows this is the case. I run it smoothly with most options on low, a few on medium and even less on high to get the balance I want in DX11 features as well as good framerates. Overall, I would say I am running Crysis 3 at 40% of it's visual capability, and it still looks better than Crysis 2 which runs on full graphics on the same rig.
Crysis has had a tradition for melting PC's, and it delivered. And although Crysis 2 wasn't pushing PC's as much or made to be the best it can be graphically, it was still one of the most visually advanced First Person Shooter titles on the shelf. With Crysis 3 the focus was turned into giving the best graphical product the CryEngine 3 could give, and they did just that, delivering next-gen graphics to our PC's one year before the release of next gen graphics.
All complaints on the graphics were finally gone, yet some now complained that it was just about the graphics and that it simply felt like a benchmark and nothing more. Each to their own I guess, but even so visuals is the most important thing in a game of this style and genre, and for the direction that the developers headed with Crysis 3 and the whole Crysis franchise in whole, Crytek nailed the visuals perfectly each time around. They achieved that which they set out to achieve time and time again and oh, lets not forget, one year ahead of everyone else. The engine as is can be still developed and improved to becoming an even stronger tool in the future, and Crytek has really forged a masterpiece in both engine and games.
 |
| One could easily argue the graphics are good enough to be pre-rendered. I myself am very sceptical with screenshots (especially the ones released from the developers) but trying it out on full setting simply put me on pain killers from all the jaw drops. The future of gaming is here! |
Lastly, if the notion that graphics are important is indeed too hard to swallow for some people and they do not agree, Crysis was obviously not meant for them so I truly wonder in such a case what they are doing talking about it in the first place? Clearly the game is focused on graphics and always has been since day one, and hence it is developed for a different market altogether and not for those that do not care about graphics. I truly do hope that gamers with narrowed tastes and perspectives finally get to migrate to the correct genre that is meant for them and stay there.
 |
| I'll just let these images speak for their selves.... |
Crysis 3 is the most visually impressive FPS title thus far and a true benchmark for visual greatness, but I am simply stating the obvious here since everyone that either loves or hates Crysis 3 knows this for a fact. Two thumbs up for the devs over at Crytek, it is a masterpiece. Even without islands and tropical paradises, the game fulfils any and all visual thirsts that a gamer can ever have in our time and day. More to this, it is also the most dynamic title of all. The movement in everything in the environment really puts an even greater feel to the entire game. Things such as the grass moving around you as you walk through it, and so much more, are a pleasure to notice in Crysis 3 from the most obvious the more subtle additions.
With the first category (graphics) down and 5 to go, it is already obvious that Crytek by comparison climbed nothing but upward overall on a list of improvements made from Crysis 1 all the way to Crysis 3. Top notch!
Note: being not entirely sure of the quality in most screenshots I had half a mind to upload screenshots of my own. I decided against this since the process of installing all titles and pin pointing every aspect would be too time consuming. I am not convinced that all shots found on the Internet are of the best graphical settings and/or how the products compare to each other on the same rig. The notes and comparisons are made mostly from my hands on experience with each title as opposed to comparing shots on the Internet. But these shots will have to make do for the most part.
 |
| Here is a shot showcasing how well the first titles handled some locations and the detail in them. Graphics that were indeed ahead of their time, being good enough even for today's' standards. |
Edit- Extra Note: After finishing with writing the article I went through installing all titles again to simply justify, make sure and check one last time on my comparisons in the case I forgot something. One concern was to look through the graphics again. Whatever some may want us to believe or will have us believe with regards to the whole Crysis 1 and Crysis 2 graphics comparison the fact of the matter is one, Crysis 2 is better, end of story. Don't let online "screenshots" fool you in believing otherwise. Crysis 2 DX 11 is simply much better in so many ways and the game looks better in almost every account if not all. It is even a little bit smoother (if that is even possible). Surely there are setting tweaks for Crysis 1 to buff it up more and mods/packs to improve graphics, but if those are the versions we are talking about then we might as well talk about Crysis 2 with mods or even Crysis 3 graphics seeing that they both share the CryEngine 3. I have even witnessed screenshots from people claiming that "each pebble on the beach of Crysis is a separate model". Ahem, in what mod is this exactly? Then we go into seeing shots from Crysis 2 with blotched textures (which also exist in the old titles if bugs is what we are looking for). For anyone that has played the games or owns the games and compares the original Crytek versions of all titles, it is clear what is what. Crysis 1 remains to be remarkable, but seriously this biased debate has to stop. Overall, Crysis 2 is graphically better and by a lot!
Artificial Intelligence
Comparing A.I in the Crysis franchise is probably not one of my best strengths since I have not played through Crysis 3 as many times as the other titles yet and Crysis 1 was a while back. I think I should be up to the task, though keeping in mind I am rusty on most A.I fronts on this franchise is a good idea.
Artificial Intelligence in the Crysis games is mostly broken down into separate behaviours (if I dare call them that) from the selectable difficulties available instead of those difficulties simply scaling hit-points alone. Hit-points (how many bullets/hits it takes before they can kill you and you them) is also a part of the equation however difficulty does affect the behaviour of each foe and how they react to you as well. These differences in behaviour however are nothing ground-breaking, they are more of an "alertness" variable. Say on an easier difficulty they'd feel like they are taking their mission quite lightly, on Post Human difficulty, they give you the sense that they mean business and/or are scared. They are seemingly jumpy with every movement their sight might fall upon.
All in all it is a more technical design than anything else. I can't say that the Crysis franchise in general has some of the best artificial intelligence in the first person shooter genre, but it isn't lame either. In some cases, it is very very good of late. The two things that make an Artificial Intelligence are technology and being creative with it. Crytek seemed always more tech-oriented and with regards to creative Artificial Intelligence it wasn't until Crysis 2 onward with the new Alien Ceph designs that Crytek seemed to be having some more fun with it all. Technologically they improved from title to title mostly, to me at least if felt an improvement with each generation.
My gripes with the first Crysis titles (especially on harder difficulties) was their ridiculous ability to spot you out in the most concealed places and what more, aim for you on the head no matter what. Add this to their bullets becoming armour piercing for some reason and you are quickly reloading from a previous saved game. (Some here would probably point out that at least they had a save game function... fair enough I guess, even though playing without the ability to save increases immersion and realism). With the A.I in Crysis and Crysis Warhead it's as though their alertness range increased with each difficulty rather than anything else changing about them with regards to behaviour, and this seems to have been passed across to all the titles that followed even if it was greatly fixed. Lastly, if I am not mistaken and remember it right, the enemy reactions were all about where a sound came from and if you are in cloak-mode or not. Foes would run to the location of the sound, and not much more was to it from their behalf. Even taking cover was generally something they did as a scripted action if ever, being rather not so creative in any way.
 |
"Were did that sound come from? Over there!
Lets walk mindlessly towards it, in groups or not.
Oh, turret in the vicinity, is the turret empty from
a gunner? Then lets move to occupy it. Otherwise,
lets wander around sometimes in circles or in the
corner of a fenced field (alone preferably) just so
we can be easily picked out from this guy with a
nanosuit that just came out of camouflage and is
power-jumping over us at the moment."
That is more or less the thought process they had.
You just simply drop in there a whole lot of guys
and spawn even more of them when alarms are set
and gunfire is heard so as to have them rush locations
and you are done. After these locations are filled with
enemies that feel like mindless bots, then the A.I does
the rest just like in a deathmatch on easy more or
less with scalable aiming accuracy for each available
difficulty. Only that it isn't a free for all deathmatch,
they are all after you, and they are not always doing
the best job of covering a place the way a military
team would. Maybe all that time on paradise island
got them rusty and thus forgetting military protocol,
or any protocol at that, who knows.
|
From all the encounters in Crysis 1, I enjoyed the soldiers more in the end, whilst the Alien Ceph encounters became much too repetitive after a while. After the initial shock of these things existing and what is going on, where you are frightened to even be spotted by them, it becomes a walk in the park as you simply run up to them uncloaked and grab them from their squid necks and bash them into pulp.
Their movement is really something as are their animations, but all we get from these alien encounters is flying-octopus-squids like those in The Matrix. This is scary enough on it's own, but it does not give opportunity for much A.I development and behaviours on their part other than great animations of freakishly swooping aliens.
One of the flaws to the A.I again here for me was chalked up to the "cloak alertness" programming. I seldom to almost never felt that I could hide in my surroundings, from being spotted somehow by these things when out of cloak no matter what was between us (including a giant boulder) to helicopters being able to spot me in the bush despite the fact that I am hiding under the most dense brush of trees. The boss fights were cool, but to be honest they didn't require that much A.I anyway so it was hard to tell if they lacked in some ways or not.
Crysis 2 improved on a whole lot of aspects with regards to A.I. You could now hide in your surroundings (not always but it was much better this time round) and even hiding behind a broken wall did the job. At least for most human encounters. The Alien Ceph this time around seemed to still have psychic abilities at times. Occasionally you would be able to slip away from them and be hid, but they sought you out much more. Even so, with Crysis 2 it felt much more realistic. Running out of energy and being uncloaked in many occasions where you do not expect it put all this to the test, and it was nicely done. I remember occasionally finding myself crawling around obstacles uncloaked to hide and managing it in the process, and many times being outsmarted by the enemy.
What's more, after many a play through the response of the enemy after different conditions was evidently not scripted as I would find myself confronted by different scenarios. This time round the human encounters were also much better. What's more, they did not just run towards a sound or gunshot, and they worked in teams as well. Don't remember the differences in difficulties and the different A.I reactions, so I will simply not do the math of dividing them into groups. When the enemy found a corpse that I nicely sniped out from a distance (wrongly believing from my part that the enemy was secluded and in a confined spot) they would radio in on it, they would take cover, they would team up to make sure the area is covered for suppressive fire when need be, and then send a team of two or three members to scout ahead, or more. I found this reaction to be a much more well organised approach to the artificial intelligence and a step up from the first titles.
 |
| Another common encounter of Ceph in the first Crysis titles was but a larger squid colony. Of course they had cool bosses too though. |
Lastly, no more squid Ceph. I liked the old squid Ceph, I just didn't want to be up against squids alone. Either way, the new Ceph enemies added a lot more to tactics and artificial intelligence. They jump around from ledges above you, scout areas in a more predator-like fashion (this actually works against them too making them easier prey at times when they are alone) and they keep in touch with each other (mostly). They have some new tech added to scout cloaked enemies, and generally they search around in a more realistic manner. They do not seem as mindless bots. They feel as though they are actually walking towards different directions with a purpose in mind, a patrolling pattern, and with intent of covering, defedning or scouting a certain area.
The large heavy duty Ceph are also a lot of fun to go up against. Cloak or not, since they are slower, you really get to use the surroundings to your advantage to trick them or lure them around. In some occasions they seem way too predictable, as they simply come straight forward to your location. Other times they circle around you, or keep distances to flush you out with their heavy duty guns.
All in all, apart from some mishaps here and there, the A.I is an improvement and this time round the surroundings feel like they mean something a little more than just being there. Using bushes and shrubs to your advantage is not always effective, and cloaking is still used a lot for hiding, but it is done much better no matter who you are up against, whilst hard surfaces are hard surfaces. They never see you hiding behind them unless they saw you run to cover in that certain spot. Lighting helps things a little too, and some levels (especially the night-island and such similar scenes) proves to be a very fun all in all encounter even with human foes.
 |
| The new Ceph in Crysis 2 were a huge step up and made the game so much more interesting in almost every way possible. What's more, they actually felt quite real. Any A.I mistakes could be also easily treated as "Alien Intelligence" and it worked up a better immersion. |
Crysis 3, although I haven't played through as many times on each level like all the older titles, seems to be an improvement even more than even Crysis 2 on all fronts. The ability of hiding in dark spots and shrubs seems a little improved but this depends a lot also on the graphic settings.
Meaning = the more pressure on the CPU the more chance of things to go wrong and be miscalculated. Just like Star Wars the Force Unleashed 2 (for example). Turning on fraps with high graphical settings on that game and on an older rig made a lot of funny problems to my gameplay such as not being able to dismember a single body part with my lightsaber from any enemy. Soon as fraps was switched off the physics started to work properly again. I am assuming this is the same case here since on my first time round I was in Post Human Warrior difficulty and using my surroundings when need be as well as cloak and able to get away with it within a field that felt accurately realistic. Trying this with heavier graphics rendered any kind of hiding not possible in some situations unless with cloak, or other things like the Tower in the first stages not being able to fire at me (even though I was uncloaked and jumping around or simply standing infront of it waiting for a response). Some more play throughs will determine exactly what this is all about as I am to rectify the "mistake" of not having played Crysis 3 as many times, soon enough.
For all the same above reasons (cpu load and playthoughs) I cannot be sure 100% if the squad tactics are improved, the same as Crysis 2, or worse. I can however recall a fair amount of locations that I had to reload due to being killed where I noticed the enemy approaching me in different ways each time or with evolving patterns that changed the experience. The squads seemed smart enough, and for the difficulty I was playing I can say I felt I was truly up against real foes. On lower difficulties this might be perhaps untrue, rendering a more fake and simulated experience. I still have to determine weather the A.I in Crysis 3 scales with difficulty or if it is just hit-point adjustment, but for what the hardcore difficulty has to offer it is top notch when everything works right. There were plenty of areas where I experienced a lot of immersion and versatility, no matter what the foe. This time round, the fun-factor on your encounters was also better scaled. With seemingly better tactics for humans or better stage design perhaps, both Alien and Human encounters felt as intense and enjoyable.
 |
| The variety of foes in Crysis 3 cannot be compared to all previous titles, it is simply superior. It includes enemy types of previous titles of course (mainly Crysis 2, and no Squid-Aliens again) and so much more. Cell personnel are much more varied, and the Ceph have cool additions as well with fire-breathing aliens, floating ones, and more. |
How well a game handles the sight/alertness of an enemy (and how well you hide in objects that you would hide within in real life) is the technical side of the A.I, and this seems to be improved as it goes. More playthroughs will determine the reality of this better. For the most part, hard objects hide you like they should, and in plenty occasions brushes hide you as well as long as you do not move in them while the enemy is facing you.
What I have not noticed in the Crysis franchise from start to end is somewhat a lack in creative artificial intelligence, at least for the human foes. When compared for example to F.E.A.R, where the enemies would barrel roll, slide under a garage door, jump over a rail, through a window, or run around a path depending on what they chose to do on their current spot rather than just follow a predefined path and reaction, Crysis seems kind of poor. Even if these actions in such games as F.E.A.R are scripted they are treats none the less that add to being surprised and enjoying the opposition. In the Crysis franchise very seldom did I get that much surprised by something the enemy did. They were all, always, predictable at most. With Crysis 3 they feel even more like a military group, realistically cover locations, hide, scout, with an improvement over even Crysis 2, but still not as surprising. Maybe I have been playing games for too many years and need more to be surprised, who knows. Even so, they are very enjoyable encounters and in some cases even amongst the most enjoyable FPS experiences ever.
 |
| Crysis 3 truly lived up to a playground packed with encounters that for the small amount of playthroughs that I had still seemed colourful and varied. The map design probably helped a lot too. |
Keeping in mind that to properly test all this, one has to create the right conditions for their rig with the right graphic options selected, have more playthroughs if need be, and above all test all games on the same rig to properly compare everything on the same environment.
 |
| All geared up. This could be used as an excuse why sometimes they spot you at no matter what when not cloaked. Who knows. Just trying to cut some slack here at least. If anything this at the least adds to variety making our foes more fun to look at when taking them out. |
To wrap it all up, like I initially stated, a completely accurate accounting to the A.I is not possible from my behalf at the time being, but I do insist that the general feel to it all got better as the games progressed.
Gameplay
The Gameplay of the Crysis franchise, in both game mechanics and interface, is generally an upgrade and process of getting better and better in each time and with each title. Crytek has evolved from a single great idea and made it even better with every addition.
Counting Crysis and Crysis Warhead again as one in this comparison since they shared more similarities than they did differences, I will go into approaching these comparisons in three generations only: Crysis, Crysis 2 and Crysis 3.
The first Crysis was a marvel for it's time. Finally it brought something new to the genre. Some games may have attempted in flirting with new mechanics and abilities, etc, but none done them half as obvious neither half as right or good as Crysis did.
Then there was the binoculars as well as the first version to the visor. With it you could use sound to spot out enemies and pin point them for your minimap to plan out your attack, or simply for keeping track of the opposition in close quarters as you wipe them out. This called for a lot of spying in a sense. Hiding on location and assessing the field before entry. It didn't do the job that good to be honest and I seldom used it unless I had to though perhaps this was because it was rarely forced on you and it was too manual. Kind of felt that you had half a technology in your hands. For what it was meant to do and for its time it was great I guess.
The interface to begin with seemed a little hard and needed some getting used to, but like I said, it was sooner than later picked up and a great tool and asset.
Crysis 2 improved on this suit by changing the functions around, making them simpler, more accessible, and more functional in general. There are some that may deem this as dumbing the game down, I couldn't disagree more. The reason for my opinion is one, multiplayer!
Evidently in multiplayer matches all the suit options in that form didn't work as great on the fly against other opponents, they mixed things up at times, and at some points some even made no sense being used at all. Some things were wrongly balanced in Crysis and made multiplayer matches more difficult generally as an interface and idea in general. Switching to strength is basically useless sometimes as well as confusing since it's purpose is split into two different function types. One use is movement (higher jumping) the other use action, with melee hitting. With Crysis 2 you simply hold jump for a strength induced jump and hold melee attack for a strength-powered hit. Simple, makes sense, and keeps you from going crazy over switching through suit options correctly. Some may argue that this is what they mean by dumbing things down. I would like to reply to such thoughts with KISS (keep it simple stupid). The interface was ground-breaking, for it's time, but it was broken in several ways as well and we never knew of those until Crysis 2 came along and fixed them. After the new controls there is no going back.
Running/speed was something else that was, well, useless at times and strangely balanced. I have to admit I really liked the speeds you could reach when sprinting on speed mode, but it was ridiculous during a match. Especially with such bugs, or perhaps physics in certain moments, where you almost propel yourself like a speeding bullet into a direction. Admittedly cool, playing against this option is just, well, not possible. In Crysis 2 you can still use the speed-mod (supposedly, it is just the sprint that other games have to be honest) and although it is too slow for my liking it is much preferred and better this way even for me. (I would honestly like it a little faster).
Rendering those two mods for the suit kind of useless, unbalanced, complicated (especially in the heat of a multiplayer match were you need all you reflexes on the go) and in the end encumbering, it all comes down to two mods that are useful really, make sense, and can be used in the field against real people. Armour and cloak.
Strength like I said before went into power-jumping by holding down jump and power melee by again holding down the button. Also steady aiming by holding down shift when zoomed down the sights. Speed is just sprint more or less so sadly it's kind of like they completely got rid of a mod by going that way, and with these new changes new movement capabilities are also added. One is sliding, the other is grabbing ledges to climb up on things (man was this a wonderful addition to the game, simply wonderful) and some extras like air stomping etc, available from different suit customisations. This brings us to the next addition.
In Crysis 2 the suit can evolve and be adjusted to the players needs and likes, adding more depth to what it actually does and what it actually is. This calls for more balancing as well and an even more versatile and enjoyable game experience on both single and multi player game modes.
Some other changes was taking out the Q and E keys for leaning around wall edges. This time round, it is simply the zoom button to lean outside of a wall or over a ledge behind which you might be hiding. One could argue that this was all done to keep in mind that the controller/gamepad on a console has less buttons. Even if this was the reason behind it I am glad. The controls now make sense and more can be done with less. This is always an improvement and a huge leap up. The prone was taken out of the game, and that might be about the one thing for which I really don't know how I feel. Hmmm.
Extra additions to the game series with the introduction of Crysis 2 include stealth kill while cloaked! How damn cool is that? And it works for multi-player matches as well, who would of thought? Nanovision is another (giving the visor to the nanosuit finally a reason for actually being there) and even more the Visor view itself. It now makes sense. It works as something that not only pin points things on your minimap or grabs sounds, it detects heart rates, strategic locations, ammunition, and actually makes them visible to you while the visor mode is off. This gives even more reason for your nanosuit helmet to exist, real-time hud to help you in the actual field during your actions.
Crysis 3 managed to feel like an improvement as well simply by trying to stick to what was achieved with Crysis 2 and perhaps build on it a little. As I gather, they spent a lot of time to figure out this new control scheme once with Crysis 2. Crysis 2 was evidently the title where they really tried to figure out new things and how they could possibly work better or even great so as to make an improved interface. And well, if something aint broke don't fix it so Crysis 3 following in those steps was an excellent choice.
Having that said, they still fixed what might have been broken in Crysis 2 in the 3rd generation and added a little more to the game as well. One thing was the Visor Hack and also toning some things down on how much the visor was used in single player games for planning out different strategies in the field. This was a great fix indeed, whilst the Visor Hack added more depth into the things you could do as well. One thing I am not sure of (and hoping they didn't change or take out) is the option to lean out of a wall or ledge by pressing zoom. I will have to check this out again, but I swear that I do not recall any time during the game where I could do this. I hope it is still part of the game, but if it isn't taking it out is not a bad direction either since it did seemed clumsy and hard to use at times, almost as if bugged. It wasn't bugged, it just wasn't the greatest working thing in the game. I would say improving on it and fixing it to work right would have been the best idea, but this will do to I guess.
One of the big differences or new additions to Crysis 3 is actually something that usually I would put in Content Design, but it changes the gameplay so much, the mechanics/interface and entire feel to it all that I simply will have to add it to this section. The Predator Bow!
Like I said, the game was already based on stealth from the go! You add a cloak to a game, then it is a stealth game, and Crysis did just that! Crysis 2 added a stealth kill function. And Crysis 3 added the Predator Bow. People shouldn't buy a racing game and then complain because it is a racing game, that is simply nothing more than evidence of a troubled IQ. Now, with that knowledge I hope those people (I dare not call them gamers, they have a long way to go still) go and enjoy yourselves some Crysis 3 in the knowledge of it being a stealth game and do try to embrace the Predator Bow, you will see that it is quite fun after all. Cheers.
Over the titles the interface has improved as has the mechanics (what the player can do), along with how all this relates to each other and above all each title was smoother and smoother in handling than the previous one. Once more, Crytek improved their game and evolved something so great that they created into something even greater. I have no complaints at all with regards to the improvement to the gameplay, movement/animation/action mechanics and interface, and neither should anyone else. Crytek not only made the franchise better, but they also made it an enjoyable multiplayer experience as well.
Making an increasingly better multiplayer experience in a game comes down to improving a titles gameplay with every generation made. And although some came again to criticise on what multiplayer game modes are available in both Crysis 2 and 3, it was nothing but a matter of again challenged IQ's that simply couldn't tell the difference between a franchise like Crysis (first person shooter single player and multiplayer stealth oriented action with just a little of war simulation solo and team game), Enemy Territory (first person shooter team based multiplayer war simulation game), Battlefield (first person shooter single player and multiplayer team based war simulation with vehicles game), Quake 3 Arena (first person shooter multiplayer team and solo action arena game), Unreal Tournament III (first person shooter multiplayer mix of everything game) and lastly something like Rainbow Six (first person shooter single player and multiplayer tactical team based and counter-terrorist simulation game).For one that has either played the above games or has an experience in games, it should be quite obvious from the descriptions that these are all different types of games and that each one aims at being something different, hence will include different things in it's game. Taking the first part of each description (First Person Shooter) alone and leaving out all the rest is the first mistake some make and reason for them to expect and complain about irrelevant things with regards to a product/game they may be experiencing, simply because they are negligent to understanding some simple basics. Truth be said the rest of us should be ignorant but oh well look how that turned out we are not. For a game like Crysis, the multiplayer and what was included was as much as it should have been. Room for improvement is always a part to the game, but not a flaw.
Lastly, as I have come to notice that I didn't actually start with explaining what gameplay in a game is or means (shame on me) I will add it on to the end of this article section right here and go the extra distance of explaining it just so some people can finally understand.
Gameplay is how well a game handles/plays that which it is made to do and also what the genre itself or title states as the core function of the game. Meaning, if a game is meant to be a racing simulator, gameplay is based on the driving physics and how well the simulation is, how realistic speeds are handled, what portion of real life features have been included to the game to simulate the physics in races, etc. An arcade racer will be the same thing minus the simulation parts. In the end for those games you would conclude that the gameplay in each (good or bad) is simply realistic driving on one and fictional driving on the other, and how well both are brought across through the interface.
The gameplay of any racing game hence is based on and about one thing and one thing alone, driving! This can be then broken down into many things from there on, but it is all under the one thing. Driving!
For a first person shooter the gameplay is not the enemy A.I, not the level design, not the weapons you have (well the weapons maybe a little sometimes) and above all not the story! It is how smoothly you carry out and execute the one thing the game is meant to do, and that is to shoot things down. Apart from how well it is done the next concern is what game mechanics you have at your disposal to do this (certain manoeuvres, perhaps power ups or abilities, etc). How well it is brought across through the interface and the mechanics. Crysis games (each one for its own generation) with all they offer on what they are made and meant to do, stand above and beyond any like-games in the same genre and include some of the best gameplay experiences in the genre. And by a very large gap at that too.
Level and Content Design
The summary version-
Crysis 1 - Great location choice for setting, partially original and creative maps, pseudo non-linear sandbox design (meaning linear), very good amount of content design which is partially creative.
Crysis 2 - Difficult location choice for setting, very original and creative maps, linear sandbox design, even better content design and more creative.
Crysis 3 - Clever transformation to a difficult location choice for setting, again very original and creative maps but no more than Crysis 2 if not less, linear sandbox design, excellent content design and plenty creativeness.
That is what it all comes down to with a quick glance. But let's see how it plays it in detail.
Crysis 1- Although Crysis birthed the whole idea and style, it didn't do much more than introduce the story and bring us the Nanosuit. In terms of originality/creativity, it was more the content with which they had displayed originality rather than the level/map designs. The whole location to begin with does not allow for anything more pretty much than just that, a military controlled tropical island. From there we go to mining sites on that island. Still nothing completely original, it is all about doing it right and designing the given sets right and Crytek did that of course.
Moving further on, the story evolves to an alien invasion, and we see the mountain/hive whatever it was and head for it to infiltrate it. Again nothing too original, the mountain/hive looked like, well, a mountain, but alien, sort of. It was great designs none the less and brought across in epic scale as well. I mean, lightning storms around the alien mountain and the sky filled up with rolling clouds and the whole atmosphere was just menacing. It was beautifully done, but not completely original. By that I mean that it felt somewhat generic. Perhaps original is the wrong word here. It wasn't creative enough. I think that remains to be the only way of putting it. It didn't strike neither resemble some form that was obvious in the entire game, making it also a signature style that would really work in every way and every part/content of the game, and unfortunately this is the truth to the matter.
 |
| A great part to the game, but it was none the less a very generic addition. |
Moving on to the pseudo non-linear sandbox design I mentioned. The levels no matter what one says were linear. Their design by nature being outside and all, gave the feeling that they were not for some (hence the pseudo part to it all), but that only goes to show how much little some players paid attention in the end. The objectives were as linear as it gets and lets face it as objectives themselves more or less they where quite boring. They didn't have something unique or extremely clever going for them feeling once again generic. You could not go a different way about completing a map, you had to go from point A to point B and the only choice that simulated freedom was the area covered between point A and B.
The only option you had beyond this was completing extra optional objectives which added a little to the non-linear feel of it all, a point C usually situated somewhere between point A and B or near one of the two. The game was designed due to the open space in a way that you could approach each objective in multiple ways (almost), and this is what made it a sand-box shooter but none the less it was never non-linear. The broken at times A.I made you feel you were doing the same thing and to enjoy a different experience it felt like you forced it on yourself rather than it coming naturally. In other words, I was more like a child inside a super-solider suit and I was playing and showing off my toys since there was no other reason to use them with unnecessary power jumps, unorthodox target prioritisation just to show off and mix things up, and so on so forth, rather than simply being an efficient effective super-soldier there to do his job and finish the mission, using his abilities because he has to.
The game didn't do much really to force you in a situation where you had to use specific means and/or strategies. Some believe this is good, but it isn't. Complete freedom of approach means for repetitive gameplay. You can experience an entire play-through in assault, or stealth, and you only change between the two because you might be bored of one or the other. Creating a situation where you need to use your wits for the best possible way through an obstacle is much more realistic and cuts down the entire assault only and stealth only patterns. Having the freedom of still choosing your own way to go about it then adds to the difficulty of the given task scaling the game more and making it even less boring. The most obvious occasion in Crysis where patterns were broken was mounting vehicles.
There isn't much required in a situation like this to make a game a sandbox shooter. If you have an entire open location and place a couple bunkers, some high ground points with military cabins perhaps, a small military base or complex, and then make sure there is enough space around it all the game becomes a sand-box shooter right away at this point. You add the main objectives which were also rather few in Crysis, throw in a couple or more optional objectives, and you are ready to go. This does not change the linearity of a game. It is a sand-box shooter, but it is still linear, and that is not a bad thing like some would have you believe. Gamers should keep in mind that a First Person Shooter game is linear game. You can't judge a game for being what it is meant to be. Linearity is also what makes a great story work in such games. This isn't a Role Playing Game so as to give the player the non-linearity that some are after (not to mention that role playing games also experience linearity of different forms). There is no reason at all to mix the genres up, I can't make it any simpler than that.
 |
| (hi-res image included for your viewing pleasure) |
The amount of content for Crysis 1 was very good. Other than the maps, the weapons were also really fun, (especially the dual wielding options although a little un-realistic for military) and it was creative enough. Some more unique weapons are not as original, like the Crysis version of the Quake railgun, but are a pleasure to have in the game. You had vehicles in the game and even got to fly a VTOL. At most, Crysis never left you feeling that it was lacking in content. It even had boss fights! And cool ones too! This added more to the feeling of Crysis being non-linear, even though some parts of it were almost like a rail shooter (the tank sequences)
The creativity to it all though comes down mostly to the Ceph and the nanosuit. The nanosuit was the most original and creative part of the entire game. The Ceph were the most original idea perhaps for an FPS, but they were not exactly 100% original (being somewhat Matrix clones). Not saying they intentionally made them similar, just saying how it all comes down when looking at the details. If anything the Matrix-Ceph squids were very original for a game and cool as I loved their idea even if they became repetitive. I still have to point it out however that even if they never intentionally went for some already existing direction, they were influenced none the less at least on a sub-conscious level. At least.
On this whole originality thing (as a designer myself) there are no two ways around making something without it reminding or being similar to something else. If you want to make an Alien squid with armour, chances are it will remind of all other armoured squids created (Matrix) and this by no means implies that someone copied someone. A specific element is simply a specific element, the same way a sniper rifle is or a sword. Using that element in countless films and games cannot render it in truth a copy.
And so this leaves us the nano-suit as the most original concept to the entire game, and pretty much what sold the game as well really. It was perfect. The only thing that topped the nanosuit after that was, the Nanosuit 2.
Crysis 2- Crytek had a much more difficult location to make appealing this time around with their choice of New York city. And even so they figured a way to make it very impressive. In terms of creativity they leaped up to another level. Their creativity was not so much on the city itself but in the destruction of it and the Ceph additions from the invasion to the city.
This time round they really went out on the Ceph on all fronts. Starting with location, they made the invasion very stylish and they created a look that is not a generic alien look any more. They created a feel and style for it native to the entire Ceph game content and the city was greatly effected by this new level of design. It was creative as it took realism crossed with science fiction to another level. Things look like they actually could be that way in the world of Crysis 2, that they work, or exist in the form and detail that they have been made. Everything fits in perfectly. The Ceph ship/hive interiors are different now and they resemble much more something original and creative. Those large metal tubes that are rising all over the city and taking apart entire areas are so well designed with all these metalic "cutting" armour pieces on them giving an overall feel to the Ceph also as something beyond alien and more mechanical as well.
The linearity of the game was the same as Crysis 1. Go from point A to point B, with some point C objectives scattered in between. The new city layout made people whine that it was not a real sandbox shooter and that it was linear. Truth of the matter is that it was the same thing more or less as Crysis 1 and Crytek did the best in a given situation. There are parts to the level progress that needed to be passed just like a rail shooter. Meaning there was only one path to take. This coordinated the different locations of the city and took you from point A to B through a variation of terrain that was so much more than just a "shrub". It was much more creative as well and make no mistake about it creating a level design that works this way is not a walk in the park. Especially as far as creativity goes.
 |
| There were many such locations in the game. Funny how most "reviews" only show game content from much more generic locations from the very first levels of Crysis 2, and also not the best shots at that either. The variety was very fun, with open parks where Ceph Gunships drop enemies to Hives, to so much more. |
Those locations aside, there were also parts of the map that were multiple paths could be taken (some funnily enough more hidden as well, kudos to that) and other locations that gave freedom over an entire location for you to approach it as open and as free as in Crysis 1. The more direct influence on the design meant also for locations and scenarios where a specific approach may be required forcing or creating the feel that you are actually using the nanosuit because you need to in order to progress. Some locations were very much aligned to a sand-box shooter and gave way to multiple ways and strategies to be mixed and matched on the go for them to be experienced in whichever way you felt needed for the objective to be completed. In many situations you were forced to compromise, and that always adds to the enjoyment of a battle-field.
End of the day Crytek gave us a location that had many options (climbing on ledges, going through sewers, manoeuvring through parks and debre, and so much more) as a sandbox shooter, and a great experience overall mixing in the entire gameplay of being either against human personnel, or Ceph, or both in a greatly designed alien invaded New York including scenes on building tops, small and large roads, bridges, parks, building complexes, ditches and torn landscapes, Central Park in the sky, and more. The level design content of Crysis 2 in the end, even on a less attractive location by comparison, was superior in design and experience. Objectives now were also now much more tailored to a story, and they were more interesting and creative as well.
 |
| The Skyline from one of the Multiplayer Maps. Similar locations more or less are also included in some areas of the single player campaign. |
Was it linear? It was, as much as Crysis 1 and every other story driven first person shooter ever made. This is not a bad thing. On a side note, playing Skyrim (the most complete open non-linear single player RPG experience of the last years, packed with over 300 hours of content) and jumping in to follow the main-story alone and nothing more, the same exact linearity is experienced and it mostly takes up more time to be completed because of distances travelled to each newly visited locations, and all the conversations in each city, town, etc. Oh right, sorry, it does have the option of you (spoiler) choosing to help the Empire or the Storm Cloaks.
Moving on from all that, the content in Crysis 2 was vastly superior to Crysis 1, even without bosses and without any VTOL sequences. The weapon designs all felt fitting to the lore of Cell, some extra weapons available from the Ceph were added, some weapons were even taken from mounted spots on armoured trucks and defensive positions, the alien Ceph finally get their own arsenal with new alien warriors running around, pingers, dropships, and heavies, with a general overall addition to creativity, originality and so on.
We don't really get to go up against any Nanosuits in Crysis 2 (like the Koreans in the first games) though we do get to see an arsenal of Cell Crynet suits being designed and displayed in later levels as well. More to the design, there are also the multiplayer nanosuits... which are simply badass and so fun to play with! In more ways than less, Crytek in Crysis 2 took to giving much more attention to the world itself, all the lore, the style, all the content to bring this across and in the end achieved in being non-generic. Calling the game a "half-ass job" as some claimed is really a ridiculous assumption when clearly so much more work was put into the title.
One other complaint on Crysis 2 was the look of the new Nanosuit. I will have to say that I am neutral to this whole change. Whilst there are some seemingly obvious design differences that seem more badass in the old design, the new one seems, plays and feels more believable. Some designs were cooler on the old suit, but in the end going back and playing the titles they felt a little over-pushed and fancy for the sake of being fancy rather than functional. Kind of the same way a younger or inexperienced designer would draw a hero/character. Some elements are more appealing to the eye, however the new nanosuit looks to work better, especially in-game.
To make this whole point a little clearer. Although the new suit looks like (as some memes would show) a slimmer Michelin man, the old nanosuit simply didn't make any sense being that thin. It was almost as if the design was made to replace the surface of a human being. The newer version looks as to be layered onto a human being. And further more, during cutscenes in Crysis 2, the new suit (in all it's movement and properly animated positions) seems much more frightening. Bulkier and easier to follow with the eye and overall more impressive. The tech is also much better in graphics, making parts of the suit actually smoother and taking away areas that would strangely bend in the old one giving the feel that although it had more metal on it, it acted more like rubber than even the new one.Gnerally speaking, there are things I like better from each design, but comparing the in-game and animated feel of each suit, the second actually does fit and feel much better.
Crysis 3- Crysis 3 is always where the fun is at even with regards to the content and level design.
Crysis 3 took the already destroyed terrain of Crysis 2, and an already appealing and creative design, and took it to the next level. With mixing the old and the new, the concrete jungle is born. Elements of Crysis 1 are brought back into the game with all that shrub and green, New York seems even more devastated as it remains in ruins with overgrown fungi everywhere, rubble and rusted metal, and the history of the place and lore comes through with the remnants of the Alien Ceph invasion on different locations.
For a third part to a trilogy, Crysis 3 really feels the likes of what all third instalments to trilogies should feel like.
Adding more to this, the dome design and idea to the new New York (N.N.Y, has kind of a tiring catch to it) along with other locations that are more Sci-Fi oriented, the location design in Crysis 3 is amazing and diverse. From building interiors, to cut-off locations with high-growing grass, to the Dam, to war-torn planes with mud, dirt and swamps, to factory complexes, to building ruins, Crysis 3 has it all. What's more is that Crytek put effort to make the game seem more like a sandbox as a response to all the complains with this matter in Crysis 2 and gave again attention to customer feedback, once more putting my respect for Crytek even higher.
They were very creative with the maps of Crysis 3, probably not more than Crysis 2 since it was also a kind of blend of both previous worlds, however the sandbox style to the game felt more of the likes of both Crysis and Crysis 2 with large areas mixed in with smaller tight places as well. The linearity of the game is that of all previous titles, with some extra optional objectives perhaps included. Following the likes of Crysis 1 and 2 in the ability to approach many situations from many paths, Crysis 3 is something of both. Not as obvious and as open as Crysis 1, but includes more options like Crysis 2 did. Crytek delivered in the sandbox styled shooter genre again and again, and even with only few playthroughs of Crysis 3 I still experienced a lot of diversity throughout both the progress of the game and on respawns due to death. Many new challenges that were better thought of and created were added (such as railed moving turrets) and the ways to get around many things (air-ducts) was also greatly designed.The content design itself is even more buffed up. Aside from the Predator Bow and the Ceph Weapons, the arsenal seems to have been improved on this title as well. Cell have mines and turrets and new looking units with a little more variety. Alien Ceph have new units as well, with fire-breathing aliens, floating aliens that scan locations and areas, aliens that cloak, snipers (or whatever that class was in the scene were you are scurrying around on building tops and rubble around a large gorge or opening next to you) and last but not least, Ceph Alien Bosses are back in the franchise and better than ever!
Add also the return to a level that includes the VTOL, and a new vehicle perhaps reminiscent in play-style to the old smaller vehicles of Crysis 1 only faster, the buggy, and we have an experience that really does put the cherry on the pie.
The content quantity on the levels was as much as any other title thus far from Crytek, and in no way a re-skinned Crysis 2. The new addition of Ceph enemies and remade Cell units results in as much new content as Crysis 2 and overall more content altogether. As for the quality, simply the best of all titles thus far. The maps are very dynamic, and they feel so lush and detailed, that one wonders how much effort and time was put in the creation of all these assets.
Lastly, the Nanosuit. It is the same as Crysis 2 no doubt this fits to the story but also fits to the design functionality of the Nanosuit 2. They had a specific goal with the Nanosuit 2 as opposed to the first version which was aimed at just looking cool. (Forgot to mention that the old nanosuit head looked a little too large and wonky on the upper side except for when we looked at the helmet from the side and behind. A convenient angle. The new helmet looks better even in coolness). And so it makes sense that they would not want to change it again this time around. Not to mention once more that it looks much better than the first nanosuit ever did during ingame and cutscenes. But even so, they did go on to creating more content with regards to nanosuits in this game, and we now have the super-cool multiplayer nanosuits that are again a union of both worlds, Crysis 1 and 2. They have the bulk of the Nanosuit 2, and the extra metals and meanness of Crysis 1. They simply look amazing and my only complaint is that we don't get such encounters in the single player campaign itself. They could have side tracked with some extra levels (perhaps 2 spread out) and added a side story and such encounters and enemies from the Cell that would also increase the whole fun-factor level to the experience of the game.
Perhaps they had too much on their plate, they did after all create a lot of content for single player and multiplayer and done so much with level designs, so the only other suggestion after that would be to simply add a couple nanosuit wielding Cell here and there in the game as is. That is perhaps the only thing missing from both Crysis 2 and 3, those old fun encounters with other nanosuits that we had in Crysis 1. I guess it more than makes up for it with a giant Alpha Ceph boss fight, which does not shy from being a menacing detailed and quality driven design unlike the old bosses from Crysis 1 which mostly felt like giant blotches in the sky attacking you.
Crysis 3 took an already growing and improving formula, united its iterations, and gave us the best title of the trilogy yet, if not one of the best first person shooters period.
Story/Plot
The story of the Crysis franchise is really for me (in terms of analysing) divided into three things. One is Story Perspective, the other is Presentation, and the third is the Plot itself.
The two perspectives as I went into explaining in the first parts of the article are Character Driven and Player Driven. What I mean is that in one method, Character Driven, we have a character name, voice, face and personal story to go by. In the other, the Player Driven, we have no character face, no voice, a codename only and a general story with no back story at all to go by.
Crysis Warhead and Crysis 3 took after the Character Driven model. This choice alone broke the repetiveness of the entire story to two parts and it was very clever. The pattern that was created was 2 story arches, the first being Crysis 1 and Warhead and the second being Crysis 2 and 3. In both story arches, we start "faceless" and then the plot gets deeper as a "face" is brought into it.
For the Character Driven model we have Psycho (in Crysis Warhead) as a character. One of the members of the first Nanosuit project, who is hot headed and wild (hence his codename) but also with morals and honour. Then we have Prophet (in Crysis 3), the leader of the old team and a major part to the plot in Crysis 2 as well. In this perspective we get a less immersion in one way with regards to feeling like we are the hero, and more immersion with regards to the story itself. More plots and references to each character are made and allowed with this approach, which also makes for a better story telling tool in a way to the lore rather than just a part of the adventure.
Now for Presentation. Presentation in the Crysis titles only got better from one title to the next. Crysis 1 was very limited to few and almost no cut-scenes at all, there were no quick-time events during the game at all, and sometimes the use of character interaction was left to a minimum only here and there when needed. Crysis Warhead improved on this formula but it was more or less along the same lines as the first title.
Crysis 2 really up'ed the game in presentation. Cut scenes, mission objective briefings, and quick-time events. The quick-time events were criticised as being something bad. I found them to be amazing. No other FPS thus far had such involving and creative quick-time events (which for me are better called interactive cutscenes, yes, that is a name I gave to it back in 2002 when I was myself thinking of new innovations and ideas for a first person shooter game and now that I think of it I will remove myself from the pack and stick to that name. Quick-time events really diminishes the idea of what these really are - Interactive Cutscenes or Scripted Scenes depending on the one used!) and everything prior to this in the genre included as many cut-scenes if not more as Crysis 2 did, with moving the camera around a little being the only inclusion of something a little interactive during a cut-scene.
There was a lot of hate on Crysis 2 for these Interactive Cutscenes and I really do come to the conclusion that people are just biased. The immature are those that praise such generic games as Call of Duty and are entertained by every possible cut-scene in it simply because it's CoD whilst others are reviewing Crysis 2 with either hate for their own reasons (either because they hate consoles and PC games being on consoles as well or whatever else their problem is) or lack of knowledge not knowing or not having played a large count of firts person shooter titles in their life, thus comparing or expecting irrelevant things. I'm surprised I didn't hear someone complain that there is no loot in Crysis. Truthfully, Crysis 2 had great cut-scenes, the presentation was simply imaculate and of high quality, scripted events and scenes were included as well as these Interactive Cutscenes/Scripted Events, adding much to the diversity of the game, creativeness of the gameplay and telling of the story.
Crysis 3 was modeled in presenation after the Crysis 2 model, and thank goodness for this. It was even better, including better videos, and yes Crytek did respond to all that hate with less Interactive Cutscenes. This presentation model is vastly superior in story immersion and quality to the prior presentation in the first Crysis titles, and with balancing it out even more in Crysis 3 the developers strike gold in one of the best progressions I have played in a game for a very long time. Added with some extra side-intel which was introduced in Crysis 2 and later perfected in Crysis 3, and the game has a lot of sotry/lore depth going for it for a First Person Shooter.
In Crysis 3 the story becomes more sentimental, it becomes more personal and has it's own way of taking us into the human side to the story and the sacrifice of heroes to do the best they could to protect humanity. What's more in Crysis 3 we also have Psycho come back to aid us, kind of resembling even more the connection with Warhead and the similarities in the Character Perspectives used and also making the story even more complete. In the plot of Crysis 3 the stakes are higher, the sacrifice greater, the relationships more personal, the evolution in the world more unique, and the entire journey makes all the more sense as all lose ends are tied and no holes left to be witnessed in the plot.I also have to say that Prophets ending after the Alpha Ceph was destroyed on Earth touched me more than anything else in the entire series. I really did feel as connected as ever with the story, with a kind of sadness it was over, relief that it was a "happy" ending in general, bitterness with the loss of some characters (the type that has you feeling the saying "You will always live in our hearts") and nostalgia for the entire series. A kind of nostalgia that made me want to experience the entire thing again, and even more a nostalgia of good memories and how it all began.
Crysis 3 is the perfect way to complete and finish off the franchise, even though I hope that there could be a spin off. For that one story that was told it was the best FPS experience all together as a whole I ever had, and I will always cherish it.
Soundtrack
Not much to say here other than a few words. Crysis 1 and Warhead was a little of Military Generic Music the way it was made, with some eastern elements as well in it. In whole, it left a mark in you and the first experience was quite satisfying with the soundtrack being very fitting and also at times very calm. It was a great start.
Crysis 2 went on into having the Hans Zimmer compose it's soundtrack. At most I love Hans Zimmer (although I have to admit that his work does seam or feel a little repetitive) but for Crysis 2 I was left with mixed feelings. The Main theme song, which is mostly and only played completely at the game's ending, is amazing! Simply brilliant! The rest of the score is in many ways nice, fitting to that one main theme at times, and in other places just colourless in a way. It felt like he was somewhat lazy (no offence) with the soundtrack and made only one good song in it with a bunch of other ok songs and more indiferent ones. They didn't capture the feeling of the game as much, or the scenes, in some moments, and the best part of the score was the repeated parts of that main theme which worked perfectly for the entire game. Other than that, it could have been a lot better.
Crysis 3 was just that and simply a lot better. Overall, as a soundtrack, Crysis 3 was much better. By comparing Main Themes alone and what was for me the best work of Hans on Crysis 2, then Crysis 2 is better leaving Crysis 3 an ok second behind. In general though, Crysis 3 had the more fitting soundtrack to all the events and scenes in the game. The action tracks were much better than all the action tracks in Crysis 2, and what's more it was as a composition much more fitting to the story of Crysis 3 as well. It felt kind of more sad, and it really tied everything nicely together throughout the entire plot.
Conclusions?
Well obviously, Crytek kept getting better and better at what they do, and Crysis is a franchise that improved with every title on every single thing. It is a rarity to have a game series that not only does not bore you but also improves more and more as it goes, and Crysis is one of those rarities. The complaints are most if not all void of logic, when one puts everything down and compares all aspects of the games it is clear that they kept improving. Taking to account that some may like some areas better in older generations of Crysis than the new as a personal reference and taste still does not excuse that overall conclusion some have that Crytek ruined the series. This is far from true, especially in a time where the most popular FPS games out there are utter rubbish.
Crytek comes along to give us that which we are aching and in need of, an FPS game with all around attention to quality (perhaps stealth FPS might be a little more accurate although assault is not uncommon in the titles). As an overall experience, each title got better than the one before it.
This is the end of an era with the conclusion to the Crysis franchise being finally complete, and I have to say the series went out in style. Definitely a keeper for all FPS lovers, Crysis is more than just your average day-to-day first person shooter. It is an entire experience of its own.
