Prey sequel confirmed

By Kristan Reed Published 12 July, 2006

Giving the game away.

A sequel to Human Head's forthcoming sci-fi shooter Prey is on the way by the look of it.

A message at the conclusion of the game reveals that "Prey will continue" leaving little room for doubt that a follow-up to the 2K-published title will be released.

The collaboration between 3D Realms and Human Head is set for release on PC and Xbox 360 on July 14th, and we will have an in-depth review for you on the morning of its release.

Its release marks the end of one of the longest running sagas in gaming history, with 3D Realms having originally announced the project way back in 1997 before quietly canning it shortly afterwards. However, even Prey's story can't match 3D Realms' ongoing Duke Nukem Forever shenanigans - also announced in 1997 and the victim of more false starts than a caffeine addled sprinter.

But rather than rehash the tired old DNF gags and speculate whether it'll be out this year, check out our coverage of Prey to date.

Picture of Kristan.

About Kristan Reed

Kristan is a former editor of Eurogamer, dad, Stone Roses bore and Norwich City supporter who sometimes mutters optimistically about Team Silent getting back together.

Read more articles from Kristan by visiting the Kristan Reed archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (18) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • THATinkjar #1 6 years ago

    Actually, Prey was announced in 1997 as well.

  • Kiigan #2 6 years ago

    Also, plenty of games end with a cliffhanger or "to be continued" message but never get a sequel. XIII for example.

  • Talha #3 6 years ago

    The game is very, very nice (just a notch below brilliant in my book), but some elements seem half-cooked. The heritage of the hero has not been exploited to the fullest, and the portals ultimately replace doors and closets of Doom 3. The gravity defying stuff is nice though.

    I suppose the sequel should take place on an alien planet.

  • bionutz #4 6 years ago

    You mean like in serious sam?

  • Xerx3s #5 6 years ago

    Actually, Prey was announced in 1997 as well.

    Did you even bother to read the article? :|

  • nickthegun #6 6 years ago

    So Prey 2: Passion of the Crap Spraying Sphincter Aliens sould be out in, what, 2015?

    Thats cool. I should just about have paid off my mortgage in time to get a PS5 to play it on. Unless its an Xbox 1440 exclusive, in which case, i'll probably already have one.

  • stoopidgreg #7 6 years ago

    shame it's not all that great from what i've read. gamespot gave it a 7.5. ho hum.

  • Harpe #8 6 years ago

    Well Stoopidgreg, you've not read everything it seems:

    [link url=http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/prey?q=prey
    ]http://ww w.metacritic.com/games/platform...[/link]

    more like 8-9/10 - that's worth investigating surely?

  • Talha #9 6 years ago

    But sometimes GameSpot DOES get it right! ;-). The problem with this game is that it is SLIGHTLY disappointing, given the potential. But if you are yearning for a shooter, this is a competent, polished and surprisingly PC-friendly package - it will run just fine on any midrange PC. Also the overall design displays a lot of imagination. Definitely get it.

  • sh0cked #10 6 years ago

    Stoopidgreg - Gamespot took a very weird line on Prey I can say that its much much MUCH better then Doom3 and Quake4 yet Gamespot gave the game a lower score then Quake4?

    Normally I have alot of respect for Gamespot I just feel they goofed on this one they seemed to miss the fun of the game (the music the locations the twisting levels etc...) and decided to concentrate on the graphics and the portals.

    Portals by the way are very cool and well done. I would say this game was easily up in the 9 - 10's

  • absolutezero #11 6 years ago

    So 7/10 games are'nt worth playing anymore? Guess I better throw 2/3 of my collection in the bin if I go by Edge reviews.

  • myiagros #12 6 years ago

    So 7/10 games are'nt worth playing anymore? Guess I better throw 2/3 of my collection in the bin if I go by Edge reviews.

    only 2/3, so that means you must have about 10 games ;)

  • stoopidgreg #13 6 years ago

    scores are different depending on the site or publication. generally gamespot awards quite high scores, so a 7.5 isn't that great. with EG and edge, a 7 or 8 is a good score.

    anyway, according to gamerankings the average score is 85% so it must be quite good. i really liked the demo but i can imagine it getting repetitive very quickly since they introduce all the game devices (gravity, portals, weird weapons, etc) very early on. from the videos i've seen it just looks like a standard shoot-em-up which i can't be bothered with these days.

  • MieZ™ #14 6 years ago

    It can't get repetitive since it's sp only lasts 6 hours...

  • Ceatlan #15 6 years ago

    I must admit that the demo was the first FPS I've had fun playing in ages. Seemed a lot better than either Doom 3 or Quake 4 to me, I'll definitely be buying it tomorrow.

  • numptyboymatt #16 6 years ago

    So....... what happened to the in-depth review "on the morning of its release"?

  • mike_mgoblue #17 6 years ago

    I really liked Prey on the Xbox 360. I rated Prey an 8 on a scale of one-to-ten. I would have rated Prey a 10 like I did Call of Duty 2, if Prey would have met the performance criteria that Call of Duty 2 did. For example, Call of Duty 2 runs at a very smoot 60 Frames Per Second with Full Screen Anti Aliasing and absolutely no V-Synch graphic page-tearing flaws. The PC version of Prey runs at 60 Frames Per Second, but the Xbox 360 version only runs at 30 Frames Per Second. This meant that the Frame Rate smoothness was just not there like it was in Call of Duty 2. As a result, I was forced to rate Prey lower, even though Prey was superior to Call of Duty 2 in many ways in regards to gameplay and strategy. Prey doesn't have any other graphic flaws; it actually looks very nice! If the Frame Rate would have run at that magic number of 60 Frames Per Second, I would have rated this game a 10!

    Next Generation game developers need to remember that the human eye sees things very differently when 60 Frames Per Second are displayed on screen. Even if the Frame Rate is 59 Frames Per Second, the human eye is not deceived into 100% smoothness like Call of Duty 2. The key is 60 Frames Per Second at all times! And for crying out loud, if 60 Frames Per Second can't be maintained at all times, then at least make sure Full Screen Anti Aliasing is used at all times!!! If that cannot be maintained, then it is time to start removing polygons from each frame, especially if pop-up or jagged lines are occuring!!!
    Edited by 2 at 16/07/06 @ 07:28

  • Krun #18 6 years ago

    You do know Mike that films and TV only run at 24-30fps.