What the hell happened to Crytek?

Back in the day, Crytek made some really cool games such as Far Cry, Crysis and Crysis Warhead. But things started going downhill with Crysis 2. It was nowhere near their earlier work, but still moderately enjoyable. Then, Crytek hit a new low with Crysis 3. The game was so dull and boring, that it would be better used for inducing sleep in insomniacs, than for entertainment. It was actually more of a technology showcase, and less of a game. Crytek seem to be hell bent on pushing the graphics to their limit (which is not necessarily a bad thing), but in this process, they seem to have totally lost the ability to develop enjoyable games. I have no faith left in Crytek anymore. People are saying Ryse: Son of Rome looks promising, but I won't talk about it now because its an XBox exclusive, and I'm a PC-only gamer. Still, I certainly feel that although Crytek designs stunning game engines, their days as a game developer should come to an end soon. Since they are so interested in ONLY graphics, they should concentrate on developing cutting edge game engines, and just outsource game development to some other studio. So, what do you people feel regarding this?

^^

I found Crysis 1 to be bland, boring, lifeless and MBirdy88

and very repetitive MBirdy88

The environment of the game goes from dense jungles, to ice frozen wastelands to the interior of alien space crafts. Call of Duty is repetitive, Crysis is not.

the whole sandbox aspect was near pointless because there was nothing to do or see outside of where you had to go.... MBirdy88

Crysis is not a sandbox game for starters. It's a free roaming First person shooter on a desert island. And the free roaming aspect allows different approaches to how to play the game. How does it improve the game? for the reasons I listed above such as the use of vehicles/stealth/flanking etc. You're obviously a nub, you should learn to play.

So over these "cry cry Crysis 2 and 3 aren't sandbox games" topics that show up every month.

Crysis 1 was great, both in the technical department and gameplay with the whole suit and open areas.

Crysis 2 was too safe on Crytek's part, probably because it was also going to consoles.

Crysis 3 was great again. It pushed the technical aspect forward and opened up the areas for some nice gameplay.

Consoles happened.

>implying Crysis 3 is worse than the first third of Crysis 2

>implying Crysis 3 is worse than the final third of Crysis 2

top lel

^^

PfizersaurusRex

Couldn't have said it better really. Consoles bring in the money and crysis might as well be a giant tech demo. They will make much much more money off licensing cry engine. This is also why crytek is trying to go F2P as well. Making a good game is like last on their to do list.

What do you mean? Crytek were NEVER that good. I found Crysis 1 to be bland, boring, lifeless and very repetitive... the whole sandbox aspect was near pointless because there was nothing to do or see outside of where you had to go.... They've made pretty graphic average gameplay shooters.MBirdy88

:lol:

Consoles happened.

pelvist

dont say that.

[QUOTE="MBirdy88"]What do you mean? Crytek were NEVER that good. I found Crysis 1 to be bland, boring, lifeless and very repetitive... the whole sandbox aspect was near pointless because there was nothing to do or see outside of where you had to go.... They've made pretty graphic average gameplay shooters.N30F3N1X

:lol:

Egotism breeds complacency.  That pretty much sums up Crytek completely. 

And Ryse looks like somethign I wouldn't bother downloading if they were giving it away for free.

So over these "cry cry Crysis 2 and 3 aren't sandbox games" topics that show up every month.

Crysis 1 was great, both in the technical department and gameplay with the whole suit and open areas.

Crysis 2 was too safe on Crytek's part, probably because it was also going to consoles.

Crysis 3 was great again. It pushed the technical aspect forward and opened up the areas for some nice gameplay.

FelipeInside

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

So over these "cry cry Crysis 2 and 3 aren't sandbox games" topics that show up every month.

Crysis 1 was great, both in the technical department and gameplay with the whole suit and open areas.

Crysis 2 was too safe on Crytek's part, probably because it was also going to consoles.

Crysis 3 was great again. It pushed the technical aspect forward and opened up the areas for some nice gameplay.

Arthas045

[QUOTE="Arthas045"][QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

So over these "cry cry Crysis 2 and 3 aren't sandbox games" topics that show up every month.

Crysis 1 was great, both in the technical department and gameplay with the whole suit and open areas.

Crysis 2 was too safe on Crytek's part, probably because it was also going to consoles.

Crysis 3 was great again. It pushed the technical aspect forward and opened up the areas for some nice gameplay.

FelipeInside

Crytek is a game engine developer playing at being a plain ol' game developer.

Crysis 1 was their best game because it had to be.  Crysis 2 and 3, well, as others have said its about the money now and multiplatforming lol.

With that said, I've enjoyed all their games a lot.  But Crysis 1 and Warhead will likely go down as some of my favorite shooters.

[QUOTE="Arthas045"][QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

So over these "cry cry Crysis 2 and 3 aren't sandbox games" topics that show up every month.

Crysis 1 was great, both in the technical department and gameplay with the whole suit and open areas.

Crysis 2 was too safe on Crytek's part, probably because it was also going to consoles.

Crysis 3 was great again. It pushed the technical aspect forward and opened up the areas for some nice gameplay.

FelipeInside

Critic reviews are almost always biased. The truth about a game (or a movie or album) is only indicated by user reviews. Critics are paid to write reviews, and they wouldn't even have spent a penny on actually purchasing the game. But users are usually common people who have actually purchased the game with their hard earned money, so what THEY say is a lot more accurate than what critics say.

Anyway, I'l just post the average metacritic user ratings for Crytek games, beginning from Far Cry and unil Crysis 3:-

Far Cry - 8.1

Crysis - 7.9

Crysis: warhead - 7.9

Crysis 2 - 6.6

Crysis 3 - 6.3

Crytek's 'downward spiral' is pretty obvious. So you see, even though some people (including you) might disagree, the statistics paint a completely different picture.

Crytek is a game engine developer playing at being a plain ol' game developer.

Crysis 1 was their best game because it had to be.  Crysis 2 and 3, well, as others have said its about the money now and multiplatforming lol.

With that said, I've enjoyed all their games a lot.  But Crysis 1 and Warhead will likely go down as some of my favorite shooters.

mrbojangles25

Yeah right. And I certainly feel that Crytek would have developed much better games if they had stayed with Ubisoft and continued with the Far Cry series, rather than teaming up with EA.

Crysis1 was just a fluke, and even then its gunplay and enemy type/synergy leave much to be desired. CryTek is clearly very skilled at tech, but that's all they've really done... tech demos.Inconsistancy

Their downfall coincides with their decision to develop multiplatform games.PernicioEnigma

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

Crytek is a game engine developer playing at being a plain ol' game developer.

Crysis 1 was their best game because it had to be.  Crysis 2 and 3, well, as others have said its about the money now and multiplatforming lol.

With that said, I've enjoyed all their games a lot.  But Crysis 1 and Warhead will likely go down as some of my favorite shooters.

funkyzoom

Yeah right. And I certainly feel that Crytek would have developed much better games if they had stayed with Ubisoft and continued with the Far Cry series, rather than teaming up with EA.

I think they would have, possibly.  

Ubisoft may have taken a giant dump on PC gamers with their DRM and whatnot, but they do make and publish really enjoyable games.  Would Crytek have continued to improve upon their success had they remained with them, or would they have ridden on that success as they have with EA? I don't know.

Either way, I think they're a good developer, and whatever shortcomings they might have, they more than make up for with technical aptitude (I mean, have you seen Star Citizen? Holy crap it is gorgeous!).

they peaked with crysis1 which was / is a masterpiece in my eyes - even the 'controversial' final third when the game switches tempo from sandbox to linear fast paced action, i thought was a masterstroke and just what the story / game needed at that point.

far cry was very good but the eagle eyed enemies got on my nerves quickly and there were some serious difficulty spikes later in the game.

since crysis though, it has all been downhill. i'm one of those who enjoyed crysis 2 even though they destroyed the storyline and cliffhanger ending of 1 and just hated 3. as guynamedbilly said i thought 3 was a soulless, shell of a game. i was that disinterested in the story / characters / setting / gameplay i couldn't even finish it. such a disappointment to see a developer as capable as crytek fall so far, so fast

I don't know why people were so obsessed with the original Crysis... Far Cry 1 was a much better game. Lost-to-Apathy

with crysis it was the way the game immersed you and sucked you in by giving you so much freedom to accomplish your goals and get from point a to b in whatever way you saw fit. there were very few pauses in the flow of the game. day turned to night and back again which, coupled with the huge open levels, multitude of pathways and attacking options, helped make it so immersive and contributed to its journey-like feel, backed up by great shooting mechanics and an impressive armory. and then of course there were the graphics - the most photorealistic of any game by some distance (at the time) - which further contributed to the atmosphere and immersion.

sure, when you first left the alien ship it was a huge shift in emphasis compared to what had previously come before it and i can see why people disliked battling the aliens, they just weren't as much fun as battling the koreans, but once you'd rescued prophet and left the ice sphere it morphed into a relentlessly fast paced action game - a change of pace the game really needed at that point to give the, admittedly generic (but effective) storyline, the credibility it needed.

in fact some of the most epic moments were towards the end of the game - looking up to see the huge alien ship slowly fly out from the ice sphere, the huge spider like ceph bursting through the canyon wall, the final battle and then the ending with prophet commandeering a ship and flying back to the island. that's just my take on it anyway. it blew me away when i first played it and very few games have done that throughout my near 30 years of gaming

[QUOTE="Lost-to-Apathy"]I don't know why people were so obsessed with the original Crysis... Far Cry 1 was a much better game. Macutchi

with crysis it was the way the game immersed you and sucked you in by giving you so much freedom to accomplish your goals and get from point a to b in whatever way you saw fit. there were very few pauses in the flow of the game. day turned to night and back again which, coupled with the huge open levels, multitude of pathways and attacking options, helped make it so immersive and contributed to its journey-like feel, backed up by great shooting mechanics and an impressive armory. and then of course there were the graphics - the most photorealistic of any game by some distance (at the time) - which further contributed to the atmosphere and immersion.

sure, when you first left the alien ship it was a huge shift in emphasis compared to what had previously come before it and i can see why people disliked battling the aliens, they just weren't as much fun as battling the koreans, but once you'd rescued prophet and left the ice sphere it morphed into a relentlessly fast paced action game - a change of pace the game really needed at that point to give the, admittedly generic (but effective) storyline, the credibility it needed.

in fact some of the most epic moments were towards the end of the game - looking up to see the huge alien ship slowly fly out from the ice sphere, the huge spider like ceph bursting through the canyon wall, the final battle and then the ending with prophet commandeering a ship and flying back to the island. that's just my take on it anyway. it blew me away when i first played it and very few games have done that throughout my near 30 years of gaming

This.

The following games in the series had none of this and tossed away what made it so great

[QUOTE="pelvist"]

Consoles happened.

sukraj

dont say that.

Consoles happened.

[QUOTE="sukraj"]

[QUOTE="pelvist"]

Consoles happened.

pelvist

dont say that.

Consoles happened.

[QUOTE="pelvist"]

[QUOTE="sukraj"]

 

dont say that.

Lost-to-Apathy

Consoles happened.

I never played Crysis 1 on consoles, but my friends who did told me that its a totally watered down version of its PC counterpart, and even the game experience feels totally different and unsatisfactory on consoles (even while not considering the inferior graphics quality on consoles).

Honestly both of their big games(Farcry and Crysis) had dissapointing second halves when the non human enemies kicked in. But the first halves were BOSS. :cool:

EAcouly

[QUOTE="couly"]EAFelipeInside

Well pretty much when a studio hits it big game quality usually drops, in reality I only enjoyed the first crysis. Unfortunatelly ass soon as a small studio has success with a game a big publisher like EA comes and bang we are pushing Crysis 99 out the door just so they can milk it. I would like to believe that games are made by people with great imagination that just come up with an idea in a bar and then make it happen.Silicel1

I don't get the Crytek love or the hate as if they betrayed their fans.

I thought Far Cry was stupid.  I couldn't stand it and stopped playing after a few hours.  Crysis was amazing.  But Crysis Warhead was just fun.  Crysis 2 was also just fun.  I haven't played Crysis 3 but I imagine it's also just fun.

They've made one game that I would call legitimately great and it was back in 2007.  They never were nor will they really be all that amazing.

Their downfall coincides with their decision to develop multiplatform games.PernicioEnigma

Their downfall coincides with their decision to develop multiplatform games.PernicioEnigma

Precisely.  

What do you mean? Crytek were NEVER that good. I found Crysis 1 to be bland, boring, lifeless and very repetitive... the whole sandbox aspect was near pointless because there was nothing to do or see outside of where you had to go.... They've made pretty graphic average gameplay shooters.MBirdy88

This x999999

[QUOTE="MBirdy88"]What do you mean? Crytek were NEVER that good. I found Crysis 1 to be bland, boring, lifeless and very repetitive... the whole sandbox aspect was near pointless because there was nothing to do or see outside of where you had to go.... They've made pretty graphic average gameplay shooters._SKatEDiRt_

This x999999

Crysis 2 and 3 were both terrible. Elann2008

Yeah, EXACTLY. Their first 3 games - Fary Cry, Crysis and Crysis Warhead were materpieces, but from then onwards, it was a downward spiral. As someone mentioned, their decision to go multi-platform brought about their downfall. But I still have a slight hope that Crytek may return to their glory days, because of the powerful bext-gen consoles.