Article by GB Burford

When developer Crytek launched Crysis in 2007, the entire gaming world let out a collective gasp. How could a game look this good, much less bring Nvidia’s legendary 8800 to its knees? The running joke for computing hardware became “sure, it’s powerful, but can it run Crysis?” So how is it that when Crysis 2 and 3 came along, they were considered disappointments to the series? How exactly can anyone make a disappointing sequel to a game widely recognized as a mere tech demo?

It’s because “tech demo” was never an adequate descriptor. You see, Crysis wasn’t just a pretty face, it also happened to be one of the best first-person shooters ever made. A good shooter emphasizes player freedom and creativity, and Crytek more than delivered, adding its own AI, a broad implementation of physics that has yet to be matched, and gigantic maps to the foundation of classic PC shooters. The sequels, unfortunately, abandoned most of these ideas, still delivering large maps and great graphics, but little else.

To understand what made Crysis so great (and where the sequels lost their way), let’s look at its second level, "Recovery."

More than just a pretty face

The premise Crysis opens with is simple: some North Koreans captured an island they shouldn’t have, and you’re part of an elite military force of dudes in super suits sent in to solve the situation. Problem is, something’s hunting both sides down. It’s more or less Predator.

"Recovery" begins with a quick cutscene that sets up the level: you’ll need to get to a small outpost and find out what’s going on. A quick jog later and you find a base that’s been attacked by whatever took your friend. In a way, it’s a playground—instead of simply dropping you into a big battle, Crysis provides a proverbial jungle gym for the player to hop around in. With guns.

You head down the road, where you’ll encounter your first living enemies. I decided to have some fun when I met ‘em. There I was, zipping up the coast in a North Korean humvee thing, when I spotted another one driving my way. I turned invisible, leaped out, and dove into the bushes as the two cars collided. The guards spilled out, shouting about how they were going to find and kill me, but I fired a few rounds off into the gas tank on the back of my humvee thing, which went up in a big boom, taking the other car—and the Koreans—with it. I didn’t just shoot at the car until it blew up; I had to specifically target the gas can on the back.

Remember, this is 2007. The sandbox FPS is a rarity. Up to this point, the typical shooter, like Half-Life 2, drops you into a location to fight enemies who are already fully aware of your presence. Sure, how you weave around the map might change, as will the choice of guns you use, but Crysis gives you a whole lot more to play with.

Right off the bat, we can see how useful the suit is, especially because you can string its powers together in interesting ways. Try running at the humvee in maximum speed mode, then briefly switching to strength, jumping over it, landing, and then shooting the gas tank. You’ll dodge gunfire and cause a nice big explosion.

Click here to watch this scene in action

If you’re thinking that’s needlessly complex, you’re right. I could just switch to maximum strength to stabilize my specially-tailored rifle (built via the in-game customization system) and snipe them from afar. However you want to handle the situation, you can. I’ve never played Crysis the same way twice, and that’s by design: it’s one of the most dynamic video game experiences out there.

It’s also a great argument for quick saving; these days, in our console-dominated world, most shooters rely on simple checkpointing. The problem with checkpointing is that it needlessly limits your ability to experiment, which is important for a game like Crysis, where experimentation is half the fun. Being able to save at will and reload the same way empowers the player to push the game to its limits, enhancing their ability to enjoy it. Crysis is, in this way, a proper PC game. It celebrates the player’s options, even with something as basic as saving—something its sequels would forget.

Moving on, you’ll find yourself heading up a trail on a hill. A few guards are patrolling the forest here, but, again, the suit gives you plenty of ways to take them down. My initial attempts at mimicking Predator failed miserably, so I jumped behind a nice, thick tree, waited for my health to regenerate, and switched to my shotgun.

The soldiers had other ideas.

They shot the tree so much it fell over, leaving me exposed and taking damage. Panicked, I fired a shotgun blast directly into the chest of the nearest soldier, then quickly unloaded two rounds into the next guy. It’s at this point that I should praise Crysis’ shotgun. Too many console-centric games feature shotguns that don’t behave at all like the real thing--they’re often gimped with unrealistically short ranges for the sake of balance, as if single-player games need weak peashooters that aren’t fun to use. Crysis presents a shotgun that roars as it fires at enemies, tearing them to shreds as soon as they get within a dozen meters or so. I love it to pieces.

Classic shooters understood one simple rule: all guns should be overpowered, because overpowered guns are fun to shoot. Gimp a gun unnecessarily, and it’s no longer fun. Crysis, as a true PC shooter, is one of the few modern games that remembers to follow this rule. It’s a game that makes you feel like Predator, even when hiding behind trees ends up backfiring horribly.

Moving on, you’ll face a few more patrols, again given new and interesting ways to deal with them as changes to the terrain permit. I found myself hiding behind a much larger tree, leaning around it—because, oh yes, Crysis features lean—and sniping all who came my way. Shooters should all feature lean. The more tools in a player’s toolbox, the more flexible and varied the game can be; classic PC shooters understood that, and Crysis did too.

After that, you’ll come across a small outpost, which, again, you can tackle how you wish. I ended up blindly throwing a grenade, which blew up something that then set off a disastrous chain of explosions. I’m still not sure what I blew up, but by the time I entered the outpost, everyone was dead.

Another time, I simply went prone—Crysis features prone too—shot a guy, which lured his friends out to check on him, then shot them too. One guard got a bit too suspicious and started looking my way, so I shot something behind him. The guard turned to look, taking cover to be safe, which would have been smart had the cover been between us. Easy pickings.

The outpost is atop a hill. Down in the valley below is your objective, a base. The hill is a wonderful sniping position—and the outpost presents players with plenty of weapons, including a sniper rifle. Making your way down the hill can be tricky, because of a small enemy squad, but if you clear them out, you’ll find a wonderful spot on a rock about half-way down the hill, except for one problem.

There’s a tree in the way.

But Crysis already taught us how to deal with this: shoot the tree, it falls down. Prophet tells you that shooting the gas station will cause a distraction, and he’s right; it explodes in a giant fireball, providing you with a way to sneak in. Don’t feel like dodging mines or sneaking across a bridge? Feel free to take a hidden path around to the right of the base. Or consider a swim in the ocean and approaching the base from the opposite side!

Sneak—or fight—your way through town, reach the objective, watch the cutscene, and go fight some tanks. Up to this point, Crysis has had some intense gun battles. The enemies really react to getting shot, or having crabs thrown at them (yes, you can kill a man by throwing a crab at him). The tanks provide meaty targets, yet they’re not giant, aimless bullet sponges that take hours to kill. They’re highly mobile and deadly, but a single rocket launcher can easily take them out.

Escaping the village, you’ll head through a forest to meet Prophet, encountering several enemy patrols along the way. I hit one guy with a knockout dart, and he slipped into the river unconscious, which apparently drowned him. I choked another guy, using him as a meat-shield while his friends shot at me, until I got close enough to throw him so hard that the impact killed his friends. Can you think of another shooter that’s got this fidelity of detail? Soldiers who lose consciousness in water will drown; meat shields that take damage will die, but their bodies can still become deadly projectiles.

The level ends when you get to the other side of the forest.

This is Crysis in a nutshell; a game with a system of play predicated on player freedom and choice. The enemies are smart enough to be fun but not omnipotent, the guns feel meaty and overpowered, and most importantly of all, Crysis emphasizes player expression through its play.

Shooters are at their best when they’re varied experiences that reward players who go “hey, I wonder if…” and find that yes, they can. It’s a genre built on a freedom that few games equal. The shooter drops you in a world and says “okay, do what you want to do.”

Good shooters engage us in as many ways as possible, and Crysis provides an incredible selection of tools, from movement to saving to suit to gun customization, that can drastically influence how we move. The suit underscores Crysis’ entire philosophy; it’s not just a gimmick. So what went wrong with the sequels?

How to break what wasn't broken

Gone from the most recent series entries are the complex enemies, quick saving, the depth of movement, the massive organic environments, and even the fidelity of control over the suit. Sure, Crysis 3 features largespaces, but they’re often flat maps with one direction of attack. The physics system appears to be entirely absent—it’s not as if you’ll be able to shoot down trees in order to snipe people, much less throw chickens at them.

The sequels present sterile worlds with invincible trees and rigid structures. Enemies seem less intelligent; more moving targets with pathfinding than intelligent beings with decision making. In Crysis, I could fool the AI and misdirect it, using the game’s physics, my suit’s powers, and my guns to manipulate my way through a level. In Crysis, I was rewarded for my creativity—could I eliminate a target by collapsing a roof on him? Yes I could. In one level, I approached a base from the east the first time; the second, I got so lost that I wound up approaching it from the west.

So it’s strange, then, that Crytek would deliver less impressive games for its sequels. Crysis 3 has one particular huge, open level that’s… mostly just shallow water. It’s a flat, empty space peppered with the occasional hill, and it’s far from the only one in the game. These aren’t fun spaces to navigate.

The fidelity of control has diminished as well. You can’t lean around corners, can’t go prone to snipe. Options diluted. Experience is dulled. Maximum Strength is no longer a mode, but a contextual choice, meaning that you won’t be switching into it so you can punch down a wall, but can hold the spacebar to jump. Even if you could switch to it, of course, it’s not like it would matter, because so few objects retain the dynamic physics that make the original so great. Want to punch a wall so a building collapses on your enemies? Sorry. Can’t do that.

That sense of forward momentum, of always having an impact, as trees collapse and trucks explode and chickens are thrown through the air is lost. Now it feels as though the only progress made is in your body count.

Crysis is a game about things you can do, a game that asks “okay, where can shooters go from here?” and offered some interesting answers. Its sequels, unfortunately, put more emphasis on big spaces and shiny graphics, de-emphasizing the game world as a living space. Crysis simulates a reality to play in. Crysis 2 and 3, on the other hand, are more arcade-driven experiences. Their worlds do not exist as real spaces to be interacted with, but as arenas for combat. Their enemies are targets, not opponents.

Crysis 2 and 3 feel like games made by someone who played Crysis once on easy mode, failing to understand just how special the game was. In many ways, Crysis is perhaps the apex of the shooter’s mechanics; it’s a celebration of player freedom. Its sequels, in contrast, are a celebration of technology, curated experiences that inhibit player choice.

In a way, it makes sense—Crysis is a microcosm of the PC gaming experience. Everyone lauds it for its technical accomplishment, but less recognized is the freedom the platform provides. I love PC gaming because I can build my own machine, tweak my OS to my specs, even mod my games to my liking. I can use whatever control setup I prefer, to the point of building a cockpit.

PC gaming is empowerment; it’s about answering “yes,” to the “can I…” question. And so is Crysis. It’s a game anyone can play in the way that suits them best.

Its sequels, on the other hand, are more in line with the console experience. Sure, they might be a bit more polished, but they’re more on rails, more curated. “Can I…” tends to lead to more “no” than “yes.” Can I knock a guy out and drown him? No, because I don’t have knockout darts any more. Can I take cover behind this tree only to have some guys shoot it down in order to kill me? No, because the physics system is less complex.

Crysis wasn’t just a tech demo. It was an evolution of the genre that provided more fidelity of interaction than any other game that came before. Few games have managed to top its ability to empower the player. Will we see another game like it? I hope we do. In an era of dull, “do what I tell you” shooters, Crysis is still a breath of fresh tropical air, proof that the genre can be more than mere pointing and clicking on things until they die.

SOURCE::

http://www.pcgamer.com/revisiting-crysiss-amazing-fps-sandbox-how-the-series-lost-its-way/

Crysis and Crysis Warhead were really good games. The sequels definately lost alot of what made the series special to begin with. I dont think we'll see a Crysis 4 anytime soon but if we were I hope the series goes back to its roots.

What do you think about Crysis and its Sequels? 

too long to read all but I remember crysis 1 was amazing not only graphically in those days but also gameplay wise it was truly a evolution in FPS games..

Why does everything must go to the PC vs console debate? Why do PC gamers think everything bad that happens to the platform is caused by consoles? Give me a break. There are a lot of guys on the web that looks like they were beaten by his parents with a console to blame the poor plastic boxes by all disgraces in the gaming world.

He even lists mechanics like Automatic save and Manual save even if the second is dated. Most games today go to the auto-save route or to the auto-save + optional manual save route (Skyrim). I loved when I got GOW: Ascension and it had added a neat auto-save system instead of the old manual saves in GOW 3.

Just to add, I do prefer Crysis 2 over the original. Crysis 3 isn't as good as the others, but still way better than people really give credit for. All 3 games suffered of being considered "just a pretty game that I can use as benchmark" while they actually go from pretty good (1 and 2) to decent (3).

idk I liked Crysis 1, but also really liked Crysis 2. Gameplay didn't really change much.

if a game is open world, you can try new ways to solve objectives, but also get way off the main path by accident. Those paths are usually not as well designed as the main path and thus feel empty.
In a linear game you can do better story telling, but you're obviously more limited.

I don't think there's really a "better" option.

I did like the gameplay in Crysis 1 + warhead and obviously the graphics and AI in Crysis 1 + warhead over Crysis 2 (except the graphics) but I do think Crysis 2 had a better story than Crysis 1. But at the end of the day, Crysis's story isnt that great either ways so the gameplay and Ai that was lost when going from crysis 1 to crysis 2 really is saddening cause the Aliens in Crysis 1 were hard as hell to kill but in Crysis 2, they were fairly easy by comparison

Now, idk if its cause they wanted to make it more console friendly or what but it is pretty saddening to see

I played Crysis in this order: Crysis Warhead -> Crysis 2 -> Crysis. I considered Warhead to be marginally better than 2 because of Psycho, its setting and its open structure. When I played Crysis however 2 feel like a downgrade in retrospect. Almost everything about it was impressive, even the zero gravity level. The visuals held up really well and the gameplay felt much so much better. I also preferred its levels, some of which were insanely huge (The Tank level for instance, I got out on foot at one point and was running around for what felt like ages) and guns didn't look the same (I don't know why but every gun looked the same to me in Crysis 2). I've never played Crysis 3 myself but I watched a friend play it on his XBox 360 and it looked (not just graphically) really bad.

Open world games are making a big comeback. The Witcher 3 and Phantom Pain look really promising and seem to be doing for other genres what Crysis did for FPS in terms of open world interaction. I'm patiently waiting for a new physics and destruction heavy FPS on console and PC. Its been too long.

First, I want to say that, though I do agree with some points in the article, I very much disagree with others.

The author falls into the trap of listing things he likes as things that have to be in a game for it to be good. Guns have to be over-powered? Bullshit. One of the things I love about the Fallout series is that even after you get over-powered guns, you still have limited ammunition for a long time, so you're still using your pea-shooters on the trash mobs. FPS games don't have to be open world to be good, either.

The problem isn't that the sequels weren't open-world or didn't have the ability to lean, it's that they changed so much, and that change was seldom for the better.

Just for the record, I thought Crysis 2 was pretty good, for the most part. Crysis 3, however, wasn't very good at all. By the end of the game, I was just pushing myself to keep playing so I could get it over with.

Really, forget about Crysis. Crysis 3 wasn't bad because it wasn't like Crysis, it was bad because it was bad.

I've grown to hate the whole "once you walk past a certain point, a bunch of enemies jump out" design, which is what Crysis 3 lived on. The stealthing was sub-par, which was especially glaring to me because I'd just beaten Deus Ex: HR--a game which is mostly linear but still very, very good. It was also annoying how you'd walk great distances without anything happening, as though you were just supposed to marvel at the graphics for awhile.

Crysis 1 was a good game, but nowhere near FarCry 1, which was a brilliant game.

Now that their games are mostly failing, maybe they'll get back to their roots...though I very much doubt that.