In an interview with OPM, Crysis 3 producer Michael Read spoke about the environment of Crysis 3.
Crysis 1 and 2 were different extremes and each with their own merits and faults. I still believe that some of the ‘linear’ comments we get regarding Crysis 2 have to do more with the visuals that people were presented with in the game using a closed off space like NYC urban grid. The freedom element was still there to some extent, but presented in a different way.
We really have a solid middle ground between the two games that allows the player to approach challenges in dynamic ways while still keeping them focused on the endgame goals.” Read added, “The ability to replay the action sequences in different ways really added a lot while still keeping the player focussed on a goal.
The environments are definitely one of the biggest changes,” Read concluded, “We were really able to identify a lot of the merits from the first two games in terms of the environment and capitalize on those for Crysis 3. The mix between broken down urban, lush rainforest, and more open spaces only helps to reinforce this experience.
So, it’s clear that Crytek want to try a Best Of Both Worlds approach, but is that what the series needs?
Many fans cry out that Crysis 3 should return to it’s roots and just try the same approach that was presented in Crysis, but is that what’s best for the series? There’s been a resurgence in open-world games recently, but is Crysis 3 “sand box-y” enough to pull that off?