Cevat Yerli - Crysis 3 Is Our Masterpiece
In an interview with Gamasutra, Crytek founder and bossman Cevat Yerli doesn't agree that Crysis 3 is the... least good, of the Crysis series.
"It is better than Crysis 2. It is better than Crysis 1. Technical and creatively, and storytelling -- all aspects."
When confronted with the scores and sales of the game so far, he put the blame on the gamers having too high expectations. Cevat argued that Crysis came at a time when it was possible to make a beautiful, open FPS on the PC, back when the current-generation consoles were still new, and that people basically expected too much to happen between each iteration.
Mr. Yerli also said they were anticipating lower scores for Crysis 3 than the previous instalments in the series. "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."
So, is he saying sequels should automatically get better scores than their previous installments, even when they do little to nothing new for the franchise? Or worse yet, when games (such as Crysis 3) are in many ways toned down compared to the originals? Crysis 3 is more restricted than Crysis 1, and it is shorter than Crysis 2.
I would very much like to know which 20 games he was referring to. Franchises like Halo, Call of Duty, Battlefield and Assassin's Creed, their Metascores go up and down between iterations, but are generally in the high 80s or even 90s out of 100. The PC-version of Crysis 3 now has an average of 77 out of 100, based on over 30 professional reviews.
Yerli says developing a multiplatform game has its limitations, but that with the high budget of Crysis 3, they could never afford to make it PC-exclusive. It is understandable that he doesn't want to limit himself to a third of the market, but is he saying that because of the consoles, he can't make Crysis 3 bigger, longer, more open-world than it already is? Didn't we see Ubisoft develop and release the amazing Far Cry 3 to rave reviews a couple of months ago?
In another interview with PCGamesN, Yerli says he hasn't played Far Cry 3 much, but he admires what Ubisoft did with it. He personally felt that Far Cry 2 was "kind of like the whole wrong direction" for the series. But he felt Far Cry 3 took itself a bit too seriously, because Far Cry had more cheesy tongue-in-cheek humor to it when Crytek ran the boat, according to Yerli.
Now, there's a few things that I find a little strange here. What kind of console limitations is Yerli talking about? Of course the consoles have their limitations. But where Crytek seem to sit down and cry their eyes out over how hard it is to do the job they themselves chose to do, many other developers make the best of what they have and sacrifice in areas where the core vision is not compromised. Again, look at the multiplatform game Far Cry 3. It is a huge, completely open world with tons of things to do. And it all looks absolutely amazing, both from an artistic and technical standpoint.
It may well be that Far Cry changed direction in some ways when Ubisoft took over. But are you saying that Crysis hasn't changed at all, Yerli? Do you genuinely feel that what Crysis used to be all about, is still present in the third installment?
Maybe it is time that Crytek's CEO stops looking back for others to blame, and start looking ahead before his ship one day hits rock bottom.