We Don’t Need Crysis 4
Crytek could make something way more interesting than another Crysis
You Are Reading :We Dont Need Crysis 4
Relatively speaking, no video games are truly necessary. I understand that. That isn’t exactly what I mean when I say Crysis 4 is unnecessary though. I mean even in the land of video games, and even in the subgenre of glossy junk food shooters with nothing of substance on offer, Crysis 4 seems unnecessary. It’s not that I hated the earlier games – my resounding memory of Crysis 3 is that it was perfectly fine and it had a Britney Spears themed Achievement. I don’t think I played the first two games. Maybe I did. It’s not like I’d remember anyway.
Crysis is lodged in the public perception not just because of its aesthetics, but because it was so good looking it melted computers. Crysis 3 is a vapid supermodel of a game – it’s gorgeous, but don’t expect it to hold a conversation. It’s Malibu Stacy. Don’t ask me, I’m just a triple-A shooter, heeheeheehee! If it was just a bad, boring game with nothing to show for it, I probably wouldn’t care much that it was getting a fourth one. It’s not to my tastes but if it’s successful enough to get a fourth instalment, especially nine years after the third, then good on it. The problem is that Crysis is not just a bad, boring game. It’s beautiful, and it could be so much more.
Graphics are not the be all and end all of video games. I have no issues getting excited for graphically subpar games like the upcoming Pokemon, and heavily stylised games like Wind Waker, Ico, or Persona 5 have a timeless quality to them. I’m not impressed by the rope in The Last of Us Part 2, nor the way Ellie pulls off her shirt, regardless of how many developers sobbed over their desks to get them just right. When video games act like movies and look like movies and clearly want to be movies, you have to ask yourself why players wouldn’t just watch a movie. You’ll certainly find a wider array of deeper themes discussed in cinema.
Crysis 3 was not just a good looking game though. It was one of the first games where things looked like what they looked like. They didn’t just resemble real-world things in that video game way, they looked real. The water in Crysis 3 looked like water, and it feels silly now that water could be such a huge selling point, but then all we discussed after TLOU2 was rope. After Red Dead Redemption 2 it was horse balls. The water, at least, tangibly added to the world.
This is why Crysis 4 feels unnecessary. There was talent behind Crysis 3, but Crysis 3 held that talent back. Even its biggest fans will regale you about how the game was a technical marvel or a visual spectacular – almost none of the praise for the game is actually for the game. It’s for the bells and whistles that keep the game running. Compare it to TLOU2, where despite the technical praise, most of the discussion revolved around the plot, the characters, the survival mechanics… you know, the game parts.
I’m not saying that instead of Crysis 4, Crytek should just make a new The Last of Us. That’s a high bar for a development team to clear, not to mention the copious amount of crunch that was involved in TLOU2’s development. But Crytek could make something that’s not Crysis. Crytek has made three of them and all it has to show for them is some pretty water and a Britney Spears joke. Maybe it’s time to make something else.
The Crysis name might sell copies, but it doesn’t seem to lead to very inspired design. Of course, selling copies is the name of the game, which is why we’re getting Crysis 4 and several other churned out shooters this year too. But Crytek could make something better. It’s a shame all we’re going to get is pretty water.
Link Source : https://www.thegamer.com/we-dont-need-crysis-4/