Crysis 3 TBA April 16th?

Duggy747

This pic was briefly up on Origin before being pulled down:



EA gave Game Informer this statement following it:

"The best kept secret in shooters just can't be contained. Stay tuned for more information on April 16."

I played Crysis 2 again just recently. This time with the latest patches it ran like butter on my middling machine. I enjoyed it for what it was, shoot the shìt out of everything and watch NY crumble but wasn't one of the best games I played last year.

Will the latest, high-ranged GPU's be deemed obsolete this time round? :pac:

Headshot

For the love of god please let the A.I be actually smart

I enjoyed Crysis 2 but mg the A.I has to be the worse iv seen in a big game for along time

Kiith

Best kept secret in shooters? Hah!

I don't really care to be honest. Still haven't cleared the 1st one, and haven't touched the 2nd. Might at some stage, but it just doesn't look that good. Shooters have to do something pretty special to get my interested these days....and being graphically impressive isn't enough.

Kirby

First one was a good game. It was beautiful and if you modded the ini slightly(made energy last longer) is was an absolute blast to play. Chucking soldiers around and stealthing through the jungle Rambo style. That snow level coming down the mountain with the blue aliens is still jaw dropping.

Crysis 2 two was an ugly, linear, console mess that has very little in common with the original.

Crysis 3 will be more of the same. They have forgotten their roots and the sad fact is that the money is in the console market. Hence another fugly scrawl that will have to run on six year old technology and will cater to the herp-a-derp console style of game design.

I like nearly all games out there. I'll play anything and enjoy it. I own all 3 current consoles and there are some brilliant games on it. I'm not a PC elitist and I'm not hard to please, honestly. I just think games should be made as good as they can be. Crysis 2 felt like it was being with a checklist.....made by the numbers.....just for sales.

It's also a bit odd that when you see that promo picture shot in full size.....its clearly a very overweight man in that nano suit

gizmo

Kirby wrote: »

First one was a good game. It was beautiful and if you modded the ini slightly(made energy last longer) is was an absolute blast to play. Chucking soldiers around and stealthing through the jungle Rambo style. That snow level coming down the mountain with the blue aliens is still jaw dropping.

Crysis 2 two was an ugly, linear, console mess that has very little in common with the original.

Crysis 3 will be more of the same. They have forgotten their roots and the sad fact is that the money is in the console market. Hence another fugly scrawl that will have to run on six year old technology and will cater to the herp-a-derp console style of game design.

I like nearly all games out there. I'll play anything and enjoy it. I own all 3 current consoles and there are some brilliant games on it. I'm not a PC elitist and I'm not hard to please, honestly. I just think games should be made as good as they can be. Crysis 2 felt like it was being with a checklist.....made by the numbers.....just for sales.

It's also a bit odd that when you see that promo picture shot in full size.....its clearly a very overweight man in that nano suit

Kindly explain a) the existence of Demon and Dark Souls and b) the fact that PC owners are clamoring for the Dark Souls port.

Next, explain why from all previews and early playthroughs so far, The Witcher 2, a game designed specifically for the PC, has been received so warmly on the 360.

The point being, Crysis 2 and its ilk didn't have **** game design because they were on console, they had **** game design because the game design was ****. Even if you ignore the technological limitations of the consoles, the design was what was flawed here, which has practically nothing to do with the platform choice when a bit of thought is put into it.

TerrorFirmer

Crysis 2 was still a decent game, and you can hardly blame them for designing it primarily with consoles in mind, given that the market is about 5 times bigger.

I actually downloaded Crysis original last night for my Xbox - it was only 15 euro - and it's actually a great port, having a blast playing it. Will pick up Crysis 2 afterwards again now that it's mega cheap.

Azza

I enjoyed all 3 Crysis games so far so will be picking this up unless the reviews are dreadfull.

I'd probably rate orginal Crysis as the best in the series so far but I thought Warheard and Crysis 2 were also good.

Gameplay is excellent and the graphics in the series are amazing (IMO they are the best looking games made so far) but story wise the series is pretty lame and I hope they go some way to address that in the 3rd game.

ShadowHearth

Surely that can't be brand new crysis 3? No info on it at all and we just had crysis 2.
It might be some sort of expansion. Still no info on it....

Duggy747

The 1st game is great fun to play, even if it does go a bit downhill after it switches to an alien shooter.

Warhead was enjoyable, too, but had absolutely horrific and hilariously bad cutscenes.

Crysis 2 was decent, didn't reinvent anything but I didn't find it a bore, either. It was quite linear which it tried to cover up with multiple routes to a checkpoint (choice of sewer, road or scaffolding :pac:) and the AI was pretty horrific with some of the enemies being complete and utter morons.

Hopefully, Crysis 3 will address the problems that dogged the previous game but I'm not holding out on anything. If it's any way decent I'll play it.

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Surely that can't be brand new crysis 3? No info on it at all and we just had crysis 2.
It might be some sort of expansion. Still no info on it....

It's most definitely Crysis 3.

As for the Crysis vs. Warhead debate, personally I preferred the later. The game felt more focused overall and the level of optimisation Crytek had done on the engine really paid off, making it a far more enjoyable experience when playing at the higher settings.

ShadowHearth

gizmo wrote: »

It's most definitely Crysis 3.

As for the Crysis vs. Warhead debate, personally I preferred the later. The game felt more focused overall and the level of optimisation Crytek had done on the engine really paid off, making it a far more enjoyable experience when playing at the higher settings.

would they release it with such small notice and so low on info?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

april 16th is the announcement.. not the game release

N64

After playing crysis 2, I think I will pass :rolleyes:

briany

The news doesn't particularly excite me. Crysis 2 was a perfectly decent game which would've been considered great had it not been in the shadow of the first. In most ways, it was a step back. The graphics were probably improved but those improvements were so incremental in nature that only graphics enthusiasts really notice the advancements over the original if there were any. The gameplay was tedious at times and the level layouts reduced the strategic element - there was more than one closed in courtyard type area to clear. I know the console market is bigger and that's fine but the trend for so many series to descend into a run and gun fest says to me that this is what the majority of gamers seem to want. Resident Evil, Splinter Cell, Silent Hill, Crysis have all had their series suffer from this disease. Shame.

armitage_skanks

I liked the original Crysis, I thought Crysis 2 was pretty crap though.

I assume Crysis 3 will be along the same lines as 2.

I don't want to get into a consoles vs PC argument but there's no doubt that consoles are one of the reason that Crysis 2 was a step backwards in scope from Crysis 1.

johnny_ultimate

armitage_skanks wrote: »

I don't want to get into a consoles vs PC argument but there's no doubt that consoles are one of the reason that Crysis 2 was a step backwards in scope from Crysis 1.

No, it isn't. It's because Crytek spend more money on technology than level designers and gameplay.

armitage_skanks

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

No, it isn't. It's because Crytek spend more money on technology than level designers and gameplay.

Learn to read. I said a step back in scope.

gizmo

armitage_skanks wrote: »

I liked the original Crysis, I thought Crysis 2 was pretty crap though.

I assume Crysis 3 will be along the same lines as 2.

I don't want to get into a consoles vs PC argument but there's no doubt that consoles are one of the reason that Crysis 2 was a step backwards in scope from Crysis 1.

Really? Then why can you buy Crysis 1 for the 360 and PS3 with the only difference being a scaling back of foliage and general downgrading of graphics?

Kiith

gizmo wrote: »

Really? Then why can you buy Crysis 1 for the 360 and PS3 with the only difference being a scaling back of foliage and general downgrading of graphics?

To be fair, it's been on the pc for over 5 years now.

One thing consoles designers do, and do very well, is use limited tech to do amazing things. It's one of the biggest advantages of consoles.

armitage_skanks

gizmo wrote: »

Really? Then why can you buy Crysis 1 for the 360 and PS3 with the only difference being a scaling back of foliage and general downgrading of graphics?

Again, read before posting.

Crysis was released in 2007. It pushed the boundaries both graphically and also in almost every other way - the AI, the sandbox, the seamless map size etc. The scope of the game is amazing even today.

Crysis 2 was released 4 years later. If it was PC only, it is reasonable to assume they would have pushed those boundaries even further 4 years later.

But they didn't. Because it would be impossible to push the boundaries further and still have it run on consoles.

Therefore, consoles are ONE of the reason that Crysis 2 was a step backwards in scope from Crysis 1.

Its a simple and factual statement.

johnny_ultimate

armitage_skanks wrote: »

Learn to read. I said a step back in scope.

In fairness, the scope of Crysis 2 was quite significant. City large, in fact. Yeah, the environments were more closed, but I'd rather that then a lot of dead space sometimes. Open isn't always better.

That was, by a distance, the least of the problems with the game IMO! And since Crytek have proven themselves consistently unable to make a game of consistent quality (Far Cry and Crysis 1 are both heavily criticised for their second halves) I don't think it is consoles that are the root of the problem. One factor in a noxious brew, I guess, and if that's all you're saying fair enough.

It's just a shame that sometimes you read threads like this (not directed at you, but some of the other posters above) and you'd swear there's never been a good game on a console, when in fact there's just as many or more than you'd get on PC. It's such a round about argument, and one seemingly without end.

briany

Crysis wasn't a step backward graphically but it wasn't a step forward either. At least not a perceptible one. Maybe the improvements were mostly under the hood to make for a smoother running game engine.

With Crysis 2 it feels like Crytek were trying to straddle the divide between the sandbox nature of the first game and something that would appeal to the lucrative Call of Duty/Gears of War market which is a lucrative market but what you end up with is a game that doesn't really know what it wants to be.

gizmo

armitage_skanks wrote: »

Again, read before posting.

Crysis was released in 2007. It pushed the boundaries both graphically and also in almost every other way - the AI, the sandbox, the seamless map size etc. The scope of the game is amazing even today.

Yet people still criticise it for being all style over substance, a flashy tech demo with poor gameplay and a pretty mediocre FPS in general. There's plenty of threads on this forum to back that up.

The AI in the game was also absolutely nothing to phone home about.

Plopping the player in the middle of a jungle and telling him to go nuts wasn't that impressive in terms of scope at the time either. Sure it was impressive given the graphics but in terms of an evolution of gameplay? Nope.

armitage_skanks wrote: »

Crysis 2 was released 4 years later. If it was PC only, it is reasonable to assume they would have pushed those boundaries even further 4 years later.

But they didn't. Because it would be impossible to push the boundaries further and still have it run on consoles.

You mean push the boundaries by putting the player into a far denser city environment which would technically be more difficult to render/drive than the more open island layout of the original?

Sure they could have made the levels larger and less linear and pushed DX11 out on release but then they'd be back to early Crysis-era when **** all people could actually play their game.

The CryEngine is actually pretty scalable so there would have been no harm in having a wider disparity between the versions but let's throw this question out there, how many people actually bought Crysis 1 for full price at release? I'd wager the number will be extremely small. So yes, there was more than likely added emphasis put on the console versions of Crysis 2 but the actual core design wouldn't have needed to suffer because of it.

So yes, I did read your post, I just disagree with nearly all of it.

armitage_skanks

gizmo wrote: »

So yes, I did read your post, I just disagree with nearly all of it.

Clearly you didn't because all I said is that that Crysis 2 had less scope than Crysis 1, and consoles were one reason.

So unless you are arguing that Crysis 2 had more scope, I don't know how you can disagree with it.

Andy!!

gizmo wrote: »

Really? Then why can you buy Crysis 1 for the 360 and PS3 with the only difference being a scaling back of foliage and general downgrading of graphics?

Uh, so Crytek can get more money? Not sure what your point is... you seem to be agreeing with him. Unless I've missed the obvious and you are being sarcastic.

Enjoying Crysis multiplayer on that version you have on 360/PS3?

gizmo

armitage_skanks wrote: »

Clearly you didn't because all I said is that that Crysis 2 had less scope than Crysis 1, and consoles were one reason.

So unless you are arguing that Crysis 2 had more scope, I don't know how you can disagree with it.

Nope, it was your definition of scope in relation to the original game and how it changed with the sequel which I disagreed with.

Andy!! wrote: »

Uh, so Crytek can get more money? Not sure what your point is... you seem to be agreeing with him. Unless I've missed the obvious and you are being sarcastic.

Nope, the point made was that the scope of the sequel was reduced from the first because the consoles couldn't handle it. Crysis being released on the consoles later invalidates this because the only thing that suffered during the porting process was the graphical detail, while the design was unchanged. This relates to my original point about Crysis 2 failing due to poor design rather than simply being a multi-platform title.

armitage_skanks then argued that had Crysis 2 been PC only then the scope could have increased which is a valid point. Again though, given the slow sales (and as a result, lower sale price) of the original I can't see how Crytek, as a company, could have justified both doing this and keeping their licence-able engine PC only.

Andy!! wrote: »

Enjoying Crysis multiplayer on that version you have on 360/PS3?

Nope, I bought Crysis on launch for the PC to justify the cost of my last rig.

Andy!!

gizmo wrote: »

Nope, the point made was that the scope of the sequel was reduced from the first because the consoles couldn't handle it.

I very much doubt that was the inspiration behind the setting.

5uspect

I didn't like Crysis 2. It was too much of a generic linear CoD clone. The first game and Warhead weren't exactly the greatest games ever but they had their large environments which made them fun to play, and come back to. I'll pass on C3 for now.

ShadowHearth

In my opinion there is way too much bitching about crysis 2. It was not as bad as people making it out to be.
I enjoyed it. It had really cool parts and some interesting stuff. Yes, it was limited As sandbox, but it was still amazing place to be in. Destroyed new York looked class.
I enjoyed crysis 2 more then crysis 1 ( yup, I said it ). Crysis had only one good part, then it went balls up when you entered ship.

The one thing I hated about crysis 2, was the sneakiness of crytek by giving only dx9 for pc. That was just low blow to pc crowd.

dreamers75

Regardless of version its a poor fps thats looks pretty in parts.

Whoever made the 1st levels of Far Cry should be made Lead Game Designer and told no evil monkeys or aliens.

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

In my opinion there is way too much bitching about crysis 2. It was not as bad as people making it out to be.
I enjoyed it. It had really cool parts and some interesting stuff. Yes, it was limited As sandbox, but it was still amazing place to be in. Destroyed new York looked class.
I enjoyed crysis 2 more then crysis 1 ( yup, I said it ). Crysis had only one good part, then it went balls up when you entered ship.

The one thing I hated about crysis 2, was the sneakiness of crytek by giving only dx9 for pc. That was just low blow to pc crowd.

Certainly agree with the first part but the second paragraph is a little off for two somewhat related reasons.

Technically speaking you can't just make a game use DirectX 11 features, there's a substantial investment required in order to use the feature set effectively, an investment which will see pretty low returns since there's still a lot of people without capable DX11 cards, many who still use Windows XP and of course, the fact that the console is a pretty large market. That's not saying Crytek really shouldn't have had their DX11 implementation ready for launch but it's a pretty important point when you consider...

Crysis didn't sell well. In fact, it sold like total ass, relatively speaking at least. In its first two weeks on sale it sold less than 100k copies. It took about two months for it to break the million mark and, as we've seen time and time again, the price drop on these titles is severe to say the least so it's quite likely that the vast vast majority of those sales would have been well below RRP. The game eventually went on to become profitable but that took almost a full year to happen. Then you have the huge piracy figures for the game, figures from Torrentfreak show it was downloaded almost a million times in the year after release, not the worst but certainly in the top handful for 2008.

My point with all of this? Saying it's a "low blow" to the PC crowd is meaningless. Crytek owe the wider PC gaming community absolutely nothing, especially preferential treatment for Crysis 2. There was no outpouring of support for the first game and, as a result, Crytek were forced to switch to console development in order to remain profitable in the long term. The result of such a move? Crysis 2 sold as many copies in 3 months as Crysis 1 did in 3 years. Oh and those piracy figures? Again according to Torrentfreak, Crysis 2 was the most pirated PC game of 2011, except this time with almost 4m downloads.

hightower1

The PC fanboys are gas.... they jizz themselves for crysis one and love that its pc exclusive but because crysis 2 was frankly a very so so kind of game BUT happened to be cross platform .... oh it HAD to be the consoles fault! lol, yeah, cause it NEVER happens that a developer can make a good game then a mediocre game next?

Battlefield is very much a PC game and heralded by the PC fanboys as one of the best PC fps games out there....that came out on consoles too but yet magically wasnt ruined by being cross platform.
Sure the campaign was a side note but what battlefield campaign wasnt.

Azza

The thing is Crytek said before Crysis 2 was released that the PC version would ship with DX 11 features. So in that regards it was bad form. I hold nothing against them going multi-platform though.

gizmo

Azza wrote: »

The thing is Crytek said before Crysis 2 was released that the PC version would ship with DX 11 features. So in that regards it was bad form. I hold nothing against them going multi-platform though.

I know nVidia said it would support DirectX 11 via ads for the GTX 5xx series but I can't remember Crytek explicitly saying it? Anyway, it was definitely known before launch that it would be shipping without it so no one was duped into buying it anyway.

My main gripe (apart from the above of course) is that they completely mishandled news of the patch after release. First we had the rumor of the patch, then the denial, then nothing and then finally, a couple of months later, we got it. All that would have been required is an update before launch saying "it's not out at launch, we are currently working with it, it'll be out in a couple of months" and we could have avoided the prolonged guessing game.

Azza

I remember hearing an interview from Yerli the CEO of Crytek saying they got hammered for saying DX11 would ship with the game at launch. He didn't remember saying that nor could he find the interview where he said it anywhere online. But alot of people got into there heads he said it somewhere and one reputable gaming website claimed the reason he couldn't find the interview is because Crytek took it down after they announced Crysis 2 would not ship at launch. He did say he regretted not being able to ship.

Looking back on Crysis 2 he was pretty honest, saying it did not meet expectations both critically (mid 80's metacritic score) and commerically and it wasn't the true break out title the company was hoping it would be. He said they where rightly flagged on A.I issues with the game but seemed to imply they where fixed in subsequent patches.

Having said that the Crysis series has sold well.
Crysis over 3 million which is very good for a PC exclusive (thats before the console release)
Crysis Warhead sold 1.5 million.
Crysis 2 had sold 3 million by the middle of last year.
Far Cry incidently sold 2.5 million, although platforms are not mentioned.

Its interesting to note they consider 3 million sales as dissapointing. Wonder what they think is good.

Kiith

Azza wrote: »

saying it did not meet expectations both critically (mid 80's metacritic score)

It's mad how mid-80's isn't regarded as a good enough rating anymore.

chrislad

Kiith wrote: »

It's mad how mid-80's isn't regarded as a good enough rating anymore.

I know! A lot of people, in terms of exams, are delighted to pass certain ones which would be between 40 to 55%!

gizmo

Azza wrote: »

I remember hearing an interview from Yerli the CEO of Crytek saying they got hammered for saying DX11 would ship with the game at launch. He didn't remember saying that nor could he find the interview where he said it anywhere online. But alot of people got into there heads he said it somewhere and one reputable gaming website claimed the reason he couldn't find the interview is because Crytek took it down after they announced Crysis 2 would not ship at launch. He did say he regretted not being able to ship.

And as we've all seen, if a news article goes online it can be taken down at a later date with little to no consequences or ways to retrieve it.

Azza wrote: »

Looking back on Crysis 2 he was pretty honest, saying it did not meet expectations both critically (mid 80's metacritic score) and commerically and it wasn't the true break out title the company was hoping it would be. He said they where rightly flagged on A.I issues with the game but seemed to imply they where fixed in subsequent patches.

Having said that the Crysis series has sold well.
Crysis over 3 million which is very good for a PC exclusive (thats before the console release)
Crysis Warhead sold 1.5 million.
Crysis 2 had sold 3 million by the middle of last year.
Far Cry incidently sold 2.5 million, although platforms are not mentioned.

Its interesting to note they consider 3 million sales as dissapointing. Wonder what they think is good.

The point regarding the three million sales is that it took nearly 3 years to reach that figure so the vast bulk of the sales would have been sold at a much lower price point. With a budget of $22m for the entire project, I can see why they'd consider that disappointing.

Azza

It was a video interview from E3 2010 that contained the statement and was pulled according to hardocp.com. They stressed the point that even though a statement was made before release that the game would not ship with DX11 features, some would of already pre-ordered the game at that point.

They did recoup the costs and make a profit on Crysis, but a well selling PC exclusive is never going sell as well as a multi platform title. It make no sense nowadays being a PC exclusive developer.

gizmo

Azza wrote: »

It was a video interview from E3 2010 that contained the statement and was pulled according to hardocp.com. They stressed the point that even though a statement was made before release that the game would not ship with DX11 features, some would of already pre-ordered the game at that point.

Hmm, I'd be shocked if it wasn't picked up on other sites after the video went up. Back in 2010 they probably intended it to be ready on launch but I can imagine they had their hands full ensuring the console version ran smoothly.

Azza wrote: »

They did recoup the costs and make a profit on Crysis, but a well selling PC exclusive is never going sell as well as a multi platform title. It make no sense nowadays being a PC exclusive developer.

Sad but true unfortunately. That being said, as I've said before, it doesn't mean the PC versions have to suffer because of it. From the reviews of The Witcher 2 on the 360 (Eurogamer have just given it 9/10) it looks like one of the best PC games released in the last while has made a rather successful transition onto the consoles.

Azza

I think Crytek said their hand was forced by EA in terms of they had to release on a certain date and DX11 simply wasn't ready. If I come across the interview I'll post it, was quite a honest interview.

Actually here it is.
http://uk.gamespot.com/warface/videos/gamescom-2011-cevat-yerli-crytek-interview-6329186/
For me as long as the game runs well, is stable and controls well, I'm happy enough with any port if the game is good, although additional enhancements for the PC would be welcome.

Headshot

Crysis 3 confirmed, set in New York

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-16-crysis-3-confirmed-set-in-new-york-first-story-details

They should of just gone back to the good auld jungle environment tbh

ShadowHearth

Headshot wrote: »

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-16-crysis-3-confirmed-set-in-new-york-first-story-details

They should of just gone back to the good auld jungle environment tbh

I just loved when I opened that link and the first thing that slapped my face: preorder dlc!!!!! FFs we barely know anything about game and there is more info on preorder packs and dlc them game it self. I hate where it is all going...

gizmo

First thing I noticed was the word "sandbox" which made me

As for the pre-order bonuses, it's quite strange that they'd announce them at the same time the game is announced alright. Not really sure what the logic with that one was at all, especially since no one is going to be driven to pre-order the game a year in advance for such thrown away additions.

briany

Headshot wrote: »

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-16-crysis-3-confirmed-set-in-new-york-first-story-details

They should of just gone back to the good auld jungle environment tbh

The problem with New York city, for me, as a setting is that it's a real place. The islands in Crysis and Far Cry were not real places and what this allowed was for the developers to imprint their own imaginations on the setting. They can create the game world as they see fit. The open plan jungle setting encourages exploration which is enjoyable even if there is little to find, finding alternate routes, increases strategic options and it's also easier to realise all those little interesting nooks and crannys. A lot of that can't happen in a closed in city setting, you can't go into every building and residence and strategic options get greatly reduced in a way that doesn't make combat more challenging but rather more tedious.

I like FPS games, at least ones which encourage exploration of the game world which not many do and ,sadly, the Crysis series seems to be going that way as well.

Azza

Seems they are going for a mish mash of the first 2 games. Sounds like its going be more open than the second. As I said before I enjoyed the Crysis series so far so I'm looking forward to this.

ShadowHearth

btw i am lost here a bit, wasnt prophet the big black fella? didnt he died? how can you play him? or protoganist from crysis 2 is now marked as prophet?

if they will do post apocaliptic New york city with sandbox element, then it wil be the coolest thing ever. i would love to be George of the jungle in sky skrapers covered in vegetation.

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

btw i am lost here a bit, wasnt prophet the big black fella? didnt he died? how can you play him? or protoganist from crysis 2 is now marked as prophet?

if they will do post apocaliptic New york city with sandbox element, then it wil be the coolest thing ever. i would love to be George of the jungle in sky skrapers covered in vegetation.

I strongly suggest you check out Enslaved on that underused console of yours.

Azza

Well it could be a prequel to Crysis 2, about what Prophet was doing in New York leading into Crysis 2.

More likely it will carry on from Crysis 2's ending, where it appeared Prophets personality had taken over Alcatraz's body.

They story line from Crysis 2 established the Nano suit was actually built from the aliens technology which Hargreaves had discovered many years earlier. It also established that the suit froms a symbotic conenction to the person where the suit and after Prophet killed himself the suit stored his personaility and eventually overwrote the fatally wounded Alcatrazs personaility. Hence at the end of the game he speaks as Prophet.

Twilightning

Origin and tons of pre-order multiplayer day 1 DLC confirmed. This'll be getting a day 1 pirate and maybe a buy further down the line, although if it turns out to be as consolized as Crysis 2 was, it'll probably be neither. Crysis 2 was crap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvSU6ufMCFU

BlitzKrieg

ShadowHearth wrote: »

btw i am lost here a bit, wasnt prophet the big black fella? didnt he died? how can you play him? or protoganist from crysis 2 is now marked as prophet?

ending for crysis 2 the last lines are: *they call me prophet*

I enjoyed Crysis 1, warhead & 2 I think as a series it has a feel all to itself that they are developing with each title passing.

So I look forward to 3.

I say the pre-order announcements are early because They dont want a sudden backlash close to release like what happened with ME3