How Crysis 3 Can Break Through the Tired FPS Mold
Aaron Cooley-Themm / Mar 26th, 2013 No Comments
When talking first person shooters, the first that come to mind are likely the heavy artillery of Call of Duty and Battlefield–by far the cream of the genre’s crop–and not Crysis 3. It’s not as if those other shooters aren’t worth playing. Crysis 3 is certainly worth the time but it also struggles to maintain importance as gamers finish the single player campaign. So how can games like Crysis 3 break the mold and into the tier that Call of Duty and Battlefield currently occupy? Simply put, what can give Crysis 3 longevity outside of the standard multiplayer offerings?
[adsense250itp]When playing through Crysis 3, there is no doubt it has a special single player experience. The graphics, lighting, gun play and environments are second to none. Not only does it provide the player with all those things, it also offers a compelling story that engages the them, something the series has struggled with. For the Crysis series, it’s always been about raw graphical power, and the series is guilty of relying on that strength. The team behind the third entry managed to bring something else to the table by offering a great story line; but what makes the experience worthwhile after moving past that first layer? Of course there’s the multiplayer, and while fun, it’s also rather average at best.
Though many might have enjoyed their time with Crysis 3’s multiplayer, they would probably choose Halo 4 or Black Ops 2 as their preferred online experience. The question is why. While some of it comes to the familiarity those games provide, a lot it comes to maps and overall design–something Crysis 3 struggles with. Maps, for the most part, are uninspiring and rather boring. Take the Ship Yard and the Rail Hall maps: there are some things to hide or walk around in and the environments feel like a viking fight in the middle of a large field where the fastest draw wins. It’s not like other shooters where strategic bottlenecks are placed by developers to encourage intense shootouts; however, there are plenty of corners and crevices to take aim from. Crysis 3 desperately needs new map packs that allow gamers to play in areas that don’t necessarily take place in the game. Instead they would provide more strategy and challenge and would stand the test of time.
More importantly, Crysis 3 desperately needs a set of story continuations. Crytek can show some ingenuity in the FPS genre and continue its strongest part of the game, while also building upon its weakest. Imagine a side mission story approach like that of the Dead Space. Psycho would be a tantalizing character players could take control of. A set of Psycho missions would allow fans to find more out about the side-kick for the game through his eyes and what he experienced in the time between Crysis 2 and 3. If Electronic Arts made these side-stories between three and four hours long apiece, it would build upon the meager five to eight hour campaign (depending on skill and difficulty level) that made up Crysis 3’s main quest. Multiplayer maps are traditionally the answer in extended the life of a shooter but Crysis isn’t the strongest in this category.
Crysis 3 is a fantastic game. It plays wonderfully and has a great story line that will keep most intrigued to the end. Upon completion of the campaign, though, most players will abandon it which always hurts a company from a resale aspect. Certainly there will be some that jump into the multiplayer over and over but the majority will jump ship back to their old favorites and continue what they are comfortable with. EA needs to find ways to continue the appeal of their games for the long haul to compete with the repeated yearly releases of Call of Duty and similar franchises. If they choose not to Crysis will, at best, always remain merely a strong contender.
tags: Crysis , crysis 3 , crytek , ea