Login | Signup

Yerli: Crysis 3 A "Masterpiece", Blames Generational "Fatigue" For Review Scores

Author:
Matt Gardner
Category:
News
Tags:
Cevat Yerli, Crysis 3, Crytek, EA Games, FPS games

Yerli: Crysis 3 A "Masterpiece", Blames Generational "Fatigue" For Review Scores

Crytek's CEO Cevat Yerli comes across as a little disheartened in  a recent interview, lamenting what he calls "a certain fatigue level with the old generation" that has filtered into public consciousness to create a consumer base with expectations that surpass what games of this generation can do.

Crysis 3 has been racking up some perfectly respectable scores (it currently sits at 77% on PC at the time of writing), but Yerli reckons that the third instalment in the trilogy is nothing short of a "masterpiece", and has been comparing it to the original's 91%.

"[Crysis 3 is] so far, our masterpiece," he told Gamasutra. "It is better than Crysis 2. It is better than Crysis 1. Technical and creatively, and storytelling -- all aspects."

So why the fall in scores? Well, Yerli puts it down to a number of things, noting that Crytek had prepared for a bit of a dip because "about 20 games that we analyzed that got hammered, sequels or three-quels, where number two, number three, or number four got significantly lower ratings than the previous iterations."

"Some games have lost up to 20 percent, despite the fact that the games are quite good still," Yerli said. "That's because there's a certain fatigue level with the old generation currently. The markets are down.

"People's expectations are much more radical than the current generation of games are doing.

"I think the new generation of consoles will reinvigorate that and help to elevate that again, and elevate new concepts of gaming which old platforms are right now limiting, too."

Yerli also suggested that the game could have been better had Crysis 3 been PC-only, but that they really didn't have to budget to make a single-platform game.

"The consoles are eight year old devices. Of course, in one way or another, they will limit you. It's impossible not to be limited by a limited console. By definition it's the case. So if it were PC only, could we have done more things? Certainly, yes. Could we have afforded a budget to make a game like Crysis 3 PC only? No. People have to understand that this is a journey of give and take."

We rather think that Crysis 3 received lower scores because Crytek made storytelling a focus in this game, revealed themselves to be fairly bad at it, and approached narrative design with the subtlety of a baseball bat to the face. As we discussed in Sunday's PWNCAST, playing Crysis for the story is like taking a trip to the Vatican for gambling and  hookers.

Jonathan is dusting off the review as I type.

Add a comment7 comments
JonLester  Mar. 4, 2013 at 14:28

Our review will be live at five. 8)

EDIT: The review will be largely positive, but Crysis 3 is no masterpiece. I still regularly play the original Crysis as a benchmark every time I get new hardware (sometimes even drivers), and it worked so brilliantly because of the enormous, stonking levels that let you choose your own path. Crysis 3 only manages to capture this in two (1.5, if we're being exact) of its levels, instead being all too willing to put you into some relatively tight arenas or bog standard turret gun sections. There's nothing particularly memorable or innovative here, despite everything being solid, sturdy and smart.

I feel that the multiplayer is a lot of fun, and more solid than C2, but there are definitely a few balance issues here and there.

Last edited by JonLester, Mar. 4, 2013 at 15:46
CovertRecon07  Mar. 4, 2013 at 14:45

Having played Crysis 2 multiplayer and Crysis 3 multiplayer in the same evening's session, I can state for a fact that the latter's MP is not up to the standard of the former's. It's got several problems, with graphics that aren't as beautifully detailed as those in C2 being the most damning for myself.

That's not fatigue on my part, it's underachievement by Crytek.

By contrast, I'm enjoying Halo 4's multiplayer as much as I enjoyed Halo 2's on the black Xbox, after not enjoying 3 and Reach so much.

teddy1590  Mar. 4, 2013 at 14:45

"Our game didn't do as well as excepted... Blame the industry"

Not the fact that the game is half the length of it's predecessors, has a convoluted and dull story, with game-play that really hasn't changed much at all besides the addition of a bow since the last entry? But hey, IT'S PRETTY!

Definitely the industries fault...

Breadster  Mar. 4, 2013 at 17:32

Well I've only played the multiplayer demo of Crysis 3 so can't really comment all that accurately, but it certainly seemed better than 2 imo.

I think Crytek are a little up their own **** to be honest. Crysis 2 was pants imo. I couldn't believe how much they were going on about incredible AI when it turned out to be terrible (many cases of enemies just running into a wall constantly while I filled them full of lead).

And yeah, fatigue from sequels isn't the problem. Halo 4 is better than Reach, Far Cry 3 is better than all it's predecessors, even Black Ops 2 is better than most previous CoDs.

JonLester  Mar. 4, 2013 at 17:52

Our Crysis 3 review is now live. Sorry it took so long, but as mentioned, EA only sent me a PC promo several days after release.

I've updated my comment above with my thoughts on Yerli's statement, but just to reiterate, Crysis 3 is no masterpiece. Games can have all the eye candy they want, but Crysis 3 lacks the sprawling freedom of the original. That's what made it great IMO, not the graphics.

C3 is still good fun, though, but we won't be talking about it next year.

Last edited by JonLester, Mar. 4, 2013 at 17:52
teddy1590  Mar. 4, 2013 at 17:55

Well I've only played the multiplayer demo of Crysis 3 so can't really comment all that accurately, but it certainly seemed better than 2 imo.

I think Crytek are a little up their own **** to be honest. Crysis 2 was pants imo. I couldn't believe how much they were going on about incredible AI when it turned out to be terrible (many cases of enemies just running into a wall constantly while I filled them full of lead).

And yeah, fatigue from sequels isn't the problem. Halo 4 is better than Reach, Far Cry 3 is better than all it's predecessors, even Black Ops 2 is better than most previous CoDs.


I played a little of the online for both, and I would say it is slightly better, but hardly a huge leap. The single player really has no improvements other than the aforementioned bow. overall I did enjoy the game, it was good but not great, and the metacritic and reviews seem to conform to that idea. He seems to think every game he puts out should be a 90+ metacritic, and would rather blame the industry and consoles manufacturers than looking at ways they could have improved there game.

Realhoneyman  Mar. 9, 2013 at 16:17

I was lucky enough to pick up a new PS3 version of Crysis 2 at Christmas for £1.00. Played some of it and the main character's suit and the setting are nice ideas but it doesn't break any new ground. It could be any shooter with any name and I wouldn't think any different.

Yes Crytek do sound very self-impressed with comments like these but perhaps they could take some heavier inluence from the immersive nature that first-person action titles like Farcry 3, Mirror's Edge, Bioshock and Skyrim give players to help gamers become more immersed in the franchise, rather than a Spriggan muscle super-suit.

Last edited by Realhoneyman, Mar. 9, 2013 at 16:18

Email Address:

You don't need an account to comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.