John-ShepardThis generation has indeed lasted longer than previous generations in the industry, and Crytek founder Cevat Yerli said gamers are suffering from a "certain fatigue level."
In speaking to Gamasutra , Yerli talked about the recently released Crysis 3 , which he considers to be the studio's "masterpiece" despite scoring lower with critics than previous games in the series.
He tried to explain the relatively lukewarm reception by the critics by saying gamers are just tired with this generation:
""Some games have lost up to 20 percent, despite the fact that the games are quite good still. 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."
Yerli added that when the next-generation consoles hit the market, that will "reinvigorate" gamers and critics and "elevate new concepts of gaming which old platforms are right now limiting." What he says makes sense but I have one problem with the statement- You talk about "new concepts" but in fact, one of the big reasons Crysis 3 didn't score off the charts is because it didn't do anything new. Are you blaming that on old hardware?
Personally, I blame it on a more fast-food approach to that franchise, Mr. Yerli. Not that the game was bad (far from it), but I think Crysis aficionados and other critics understand what I mean.
I really don't like these guys…..like both the last of us and bioshock infinite will get lukewarm reviews.
Last edited by Teddie9 on 3/1/2013 11:04:59 PM
Urgh
The crysis franchise,great tech….average storytelling,although i do like the open ended approach to the missions.
Oh plus they need to work on the A I.
Last edited by Lord carlos on 3/1/2013 11:37:17 PM
I cant stand Crytek honestly. They make great games, or atleast the Crysis franchise is good. But these guys just talk and talk and talk. They have the biggest egos in the world, and they tend to back up what they are saying, all the while not actually living up to what they claim. Its a weird predicament. They say something, dont quite live up to the level they claim yet still produce a great game and nobody cares what they say. Its a win win for them. But they irritate me.
Those egos come from being previously PC-exclusive
…thats very true!
I feel the same as you. Great games, annoying bigwigs.
@World,
now that's not fair. We got big heads in the console world too. Indeed we do.
oh bull donkey!
theres tons of ex PC exclusive developers who are not stuck up, in fact there the most humble developers out there!
blizzard, 4A games, CD project red, GSC Game World, remedy, just to name a few.
cervat has his head up his a$$ because thats just his personality!
Maybe so, but who else got tired of every console FPS being assaulted by PC folks because "Crysis looks better on max settings"?
It's just the ranking of the gaming world, World. They are on top of the food chain, sort to speak, with their high end equipment.
That bit is annoying but the typical console gamer is doing the *exact* same against those who do their gaming on stuff that looks or plays less impressive than on their console (how's smarphone gaming, anyone? Tablets? WiiU? Oyuo?…).
It's got nothing to do with platform, all to do with the nature of gamers. We really are a bunch of childish pricks at times.
I know I'm gonna get shot for this but I'll just say it.
Despite the inferior graphic, I'd take the Halo series over Crysis anytime.
?
I'll take Halo 4 over any Crysis any day of the week, monday – friday.
The thing i don't like about Crytek…Is they always play it safe. They need to take a gamble and try something new.
Well dude, it isn't time to end a generation until there's some fatigue, otherwise you're just Apple.
Developers also get fatigued.
Uncharted has more character in its little finger than Crysis has in its whole body…
true dat
I disagree, strongly. Crysis reeks of character.
Whether you *like* the character or not is of course a question of personal preferences. But Crysis is indeed one of the more characteristic shooters to come out in recent years.
And yeah, I *love* the franchise.
Last edited by Beamboom on 3/2/2013 3:51:22 AM
Crysis 3 is a magnificent game and Crysis is a magnificent franchise.
How some people can prefer shite like ni kon uni or what ever the hell its called over sheer brilliance like Crysis3 is completely beyond me.
I just hope Warhead gets a port too.
Its called personal preference.
In any case crysis has been going downhill ever since it went multiplatform which is the opposite to magnificent,should of remained on pc.
Why list a JRPG along side a FPS??…..apples & oranges,
Last edited by Lord carlos on 3/2/2013 4:49:44 AM
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen posted by someone who isn't blank line.
Yeah, after managing to play Ni No Kuni last night and after being a previous player of all 3 Crysis games, your comment makes me want to warp through a glitch in the internet, merge out of your computer screen and punch you square in the face.
It's not as if the two games are even comparable anyway, but don't you EVER, compare them again. It's like a chav just came up to me and started taking a shit on more effortful in depth music whilst hailing sh***y a** autotuned generic sampled pop music. F**k.
people are not getting sick of games because there sick of the systems they play them on, there sick of games because so many of them are copy and pastes!
take the title off BF3, and i could swear its MW3!
take the label off RE6 and i could swear its gears 3!
ect, ect.
people are just sick of playing the same game over and over and over and over and over and over again, thats all!
nah, BF3 is more sluggish and boring than COD. To me BF needs to be more realistic and more tactical than it is. It portrays itself as the more realistic game just fine but the game play just isn't thick enough. I'd rather have CODs more balls to the wall action and the intensity in numbers sort of feel as it is now. BF has equally stupid AI as COD but you drop maybe half as many of them as you do in COD.
CoD doesn't come near BF3. Graphics nor Gameplay department. EA (I hate EA) said themselves that they found the right balance between realism and a videogame. If BF3 were to be realistic, it would be boring, because war is boring. It's not like you see it in videogames.
wrong wrong wrong!
(Woo hoo I win =p )
it is a little more sluggish, but the differences are like lemon sorbet and lemon gelato.
more COD than the realistic tactical heavy squad focused shooter it would have you believe it is!
I think I dislike this man more and more every time he opens his mouth.
Blaming the hardware is stupid. Its like what a lot of other people have said in the comments, more and more games are rehashes that don't explore new concepts because the publishers are afraid to take a risk.
Hardware isn't going to make you come up with an idea every gamer hasn't seen before. In fact one of the best stealth games I have played Mark of the Ninja is 2D and very modest when it comes to system requirements. Its not revolutionary, but I would argue it has added a lot to the stealth genre that wasn't there before.
Dishonored was pretty fresh despite the "old technology" and we still do get games like Journey, and Unfinished Swan.
I see a lot of fun fresh indie stuff popping up on the PC on steam and other places and they are usually never visually demanding.
Unless all the devs complaining about this old hardware are planning on making super awesome AI I can't see the new generation doing anything much different than this gen expect for games are going to look better.
Look at Killzone:Shadowfall, that game looked impressive graphically, but what new stuff was there that we didn't see in any FPS that we have already played? Nothing as far as I could see.
Anyway, I have to take a wait and see approach, but I don't know why publishers would all of the sudden grow a pair of balls next gen when the last couple years so many games have genre blended, and tried in some ways to mimic the CoD formula of hi stimulai rollercoaster micheal bay type action low input,even if they arent part of the shooter genre.
Im not saying KZ: SF will have anything revolutionary, because I dont know. But thats the point. We seen a vudeo of a few minutes in length and you are calling it out.
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 3/2/2013 10:58:05 AM
I dunno mate – might not be the same for all shooters but lets face it – the big two – COD and BF isn't about the Michael Bay effects as no one gives a rat's ass about the campaigns – its all about the multi player – testing your reflexes and tactics against the next guys – which is the reason COD had done so well on an old engine without the pretty effects.
It certainly is instant gratification though. Especially when played with a nice single malt at hand.
Last edited by ulsterscot on 3/2/2013 2:12:36 PM
Let me get this straight – Crytek makes a game with a tired and uninspiring story that has pretty graphics and subpar AI, and they are going to blame the lukewarm reviews on us?
Looks like they are missing an opportunity to better themselves…
Last edited by SaiyanSenpai on 3/2/2013 3:07:56 PM
Crysis 3 just needed more big dinosaurs. I know Turok left bad tastes in our mouths but someone needs to do a grassy survival FPS dinosaur game. Anyone but Crapcom that is 😉
love Turok
Well, we all loved the cerebral boar at least 😉
Huh? Why is he complaining? Isn't Crysis only purpose to benchmark your PC performance? It's not like 3DMark goes on and on about how they don't sell, eh?
So why are you complaining, Yerli?
Release an actual game for once, and maybe you'll get to complain.
Huh? Why is he complaining? Isn't Crysis only purpose to benchmark your PC performance? It's not like 3DMark goes on and on about how they don't sell, eh?
So why are you complaining, Yerli?
Release an actual game for once, and maybe you'll get to complain.
The heck happened to my browser… -__-