1UP's CRYSIS Review (8/10)

J-Rzez said:
They didn't take a point off for it costing you over a "G" on a machine able to play this at it's screenshots and video quality? Anyways, I agree with this score from 1up, for once.
Click to expand...

They didn't and rightfully so.
Consumers should decide whether or not a game is worth the entry price, not the reviewer.
 
PC reviews for 1UP are handled by GFW. I wouldn't bother to try and compare the PC to console reviews because they're done by entirely different teams.

The GFW reviews are solid. Shawn makes his case and backs it up well.
 
TheGreatDave said:
Sure, if the cheaper ones perform as well. The fact is, the game requires a premium to play, but the graphics are good enough that it's worthy of the investment. And a year from now, it'll probably be much more affordable to play anyway.
Click to expand...
But you're reviewing it now.
And you're thus also judging whether this game alone is worth investing a lot of money into hardware.
 
Coen said:
They didn't and rightfully so.
Consumers should decide whether or not a game is worth the entry price, not the reviewer.
Click to expand...

and how do you suppose to decide whether a game is worth it without investing in the hardware first? Assuming they upgraded specifically for crysis.
 
viakado said:
and how do you suppose to decide whether a game is worth it without investing in the hardware first? Assuming they upgraded specifically for crysis.
Click to expand...

God what a stupid argument.

Hey, how's this? If you upgraded for Crysis, you also upgraded for every single games you will play on that PC. Old game will perform better, new ones will perform great.

STFU.

This is how PC gaming has ALWAYS worked. There are games that come out in which PC gamers will upgrade for HAPPILY. This is one of them. You will not find them bitching.

So stupid. You know, they should have docked Gears of War because it required me to buy a Xbox 360 when I couldn't play it on my Xbox. =(
 
Kabouter said:
But you're reviewing it now.
And you're thus also judging whether this game alone is worth investing a lot of money into hardware.
Click to expand...

That's fine; rate a game on it's merits. But I don't think it's fair to say "well, the game is a 9, but it's gonna cost a lot of money to get a graphics card that'll run it, so it's a 8". Shit, right now I'm stuck with a card that would struggle to run Half Life 2 above 800x600 with medium settings. That shouldn't affect what a reviewer tells me about a game.
 
Kabouter said:
Taking the performance into consideration IS reflecting the game correctly. A review is consumer advice. Now explain to me how a game isn't worth scoring lower when it doesn't run well on most PC's, even though they do perform well in every single other game.



Yes...you would.
If a 50e set of speakers performs amazingly, it should get a far higher score than one that costs twenty times as much and performs the same. Value should always be a consideration for reviews.
Click to expand...
I agree with you completely. It is not that difficult (relatively speaking) to design and create a game (or any program for that matter) that runs well on a $4000 computer. Designing and creating a good game that works well on a $1000 one however is difficult and should be rewarded.

If we don't take this into account, very soon we are going to end up with PC games that only a very small minority can run well, all getting high scores because developers were not bound by any hardware limitation. All with the pretext of "but there exists a PC that can run this game well". Even if it means buying an $800 video card and a expensive physic card.

At the end and all things considered, the score given to the game should reflect the value of the game. Even if we go by the criteria of score reflecting the effort and creativity put in the game, you may decide to take away a point or two if developer does not bother to come up with smart algorithms to allow the game run well on a regular PC.

Good PC games have been known to push the limit of the hardware and even be a driving factor for upgrade, but seems to me this game takes this concept too far.
 
TheGreatDave said:
That's fine; rate a game on it's merits. But I don't think it's fair to say "well, the game is a 9, but it's gonna cost a lot of money to get a graphics card that'll run it, so it's a 8". Shit, right now I'm stuck with a card that would struggle to run Half Life 2 above 800x600 with medium settings. That shouldn't affect what a reviewer tells me about a game.
Click to expand...
your wading into the "value" argument. Do you believe free games shouldnt be given some slack in reviews?
 
Wow, I didn't see that coming. 8 is good, of course, but judging by the hype around this game, I had expected a 9 at minimum. I'm anxious to see what is said in the upcoming multiplayer sidebar, and even more anxious to hear the crew's opinions during the next GFW podcast.
 
Kintaro said:
God what a stupid argument.

Hey, how's this? If you upgraded for Crysis, you also upgraded for every single games you will play on that PC. Old game will perform better, new ones will perform great.

STFU.

This is how PC gaming has ALWAYS worked. There are games that come out in which PC gamers will upgrade for HAPPILY. This is one of them. You will not find them bitching.

So stupid. You know, they should have docked Gears of War because it required me to buy a Xbox 360 when I couldn't play it on my Xbox. =(
Click to expand...

come down man. there are people willing to upgrade for crysis, some wont. imo, with such an upgrade, i'm more open to reviews.
 
Read the review and it's well-written, doesn't fall into generic phrasing of so many others and he gets his points across very well. As always, nice job!
 
Suburban Cowboy said:
your wading into the "value" argument. Do you believe free games shouldnt be given some slack in reviews?
Click to expand...

Crysis is still a £35 game. It's not a game you simply have to buy a new system for. As long as PC games have been reviewed they have been play tested on high end PCs; I don't think Crysis is any more worthy of criticism for it's requirements than the dozens of PC games that come out every year I couldn't dream of running smoothly.
 
madmook said:
Hehe Shawn totally pulled a fast one on us. Sounding all positive about how playing past the demo level changed his opinion of the game totally. Well looks like the latter parts of the game are escort missions, corridor shooting sprees, on-rails sections and a crappy boss fight to top it all off. Oh well, if the demo level is anything to go by I'll still have plenty of fun replaying the jungle portions with regular soldiers to fight.
Click to expand...
Sounds like halo 2 to me. But hey that got a 10.....
 
TheGreatDave said:
That's fine; rate a game on it's merits. But I don't think it's fair to say "well, the game is a 9, but it's gonna cost a lot of money to get a graphics card that'll run it, so it's a 8". Shit, right now I'm stuck with a card that would struggle to run Half Life 2 above 800x600 with medium settings. That shouldn't affect what a reviewer tells me about a game.
Click to expand...

So basically if I build the objectively best car out there but charge the same as an Airbus A800 for it, it's still bound to get perfect reviews from car magazines?
 
TheGreatDave said:
Crysis is still a £35 game. It's not a game you simply have to buy a new system for. As long as PC games have been reviewed they have been play tested on high end PCs; I don't think Crysis is any more worthy of criticism for it's requirements than the dozens of PC games that come out every year I couldn't dream of running smoothly.
Click to expand...
Crysis is miles out of line with the rest of PC gaming though in terms of what it demands, and THAT is the problem people have with it.
 
Suburban Cowboy said:
but halo2 has team deathmatch
Click to expand...
But crysis has Power struggle, one of the best map making tools and team deathmatch.

Did 1up give halo 3 a 10 for the forge and online? If so they should up crysis's score for the mapping tool because its way more advance than the forge.
 
These "tech-demo" games usually end up falling short, like Doom 3, Quake 3... probably several others. Which is fine, yanno, but the hype train sure did run away from itself on this one. While not a disaster score wise, I was expecting more. Not that I'll ever get to play it :lol
 
Can't we make a "Crysis Review Scores thread" like with SMG? just contain all the fanboy shittiness in one place, it not only cleans up the front page, it also allows mods to focus their laserlike ban gun in one place instead of needing to refresh 12 different threads.... :/
 
Kabouter said:
Because it's a perfectly valid complaint.
Crysis requires the gamer to go far above and beyond the hardware needed to play anything else on higher settings. In fact, many rigs that can barely run Crysis on medium can run everything else on maximum settings. Therefore, it's not a platform issue, it's a game issue.
Click to expand...
Costs aren't constant over time. What you think is obscenely expensive now won't be in 6 to 12 months. Review scores don't get changed retroactively, so they shouldn't include factors that are known to change so quickly.
And what if a game manages to be so fucking amazing that it's worth the price of entry? Would you rate things on a 0-7 scale categorically once they cross some arbitrary cost threshold? You shouldn't, because you're punishing the same game multiple times. "It's freaking expensive to play and it's not as good, going by the reviews".
Also what medrew said. The system cost has nothing to do with the quality of the game. It's not as if the performance was poor when compared to any peers that look just as good -- there don't appear to be any PC games at the moment that squeeze the same, let alone more graphics quality out of the same system.
 
laesperanzapaz said:
why do we need a new thread for every fucking review

Can't we make a "Crysis Review Scores thread" like with SMG? just contain all the fanboy shittiness in one place, it not only cleans up the front page, it also allows mods to focus their laserlike ban gun in one place instead of needing to refresh 12 different threads.... :/
Click to expand...
Spamming that in each thread certainly helps your cause.
 
McBradders said:
These "tech-demo" games usually end up falling short, like Doom 3, Quake 3... probably several others. Which is fine, yanno, but the hype train sure did run away from itself on this one. While not a disaster score wise, I was expecting more. Not that I'll ever get to play it :lol
Click to expand...

how the fuck did q3 fall short? its a multiplayer game and did all the deathmatch modes perfect and is still the best 4on4/1on1 game.

the review is a good read and i think the points are valid.
i played the demo for half a day and had fun.

it full fills half of the things that make a shooter good (kinda similar as FEAR).
good weapons, good enemy reactions.
and unlike hl, no pacing and ideas how to tell a story without sounding like PREDATOR
 
KyanMehwulfe said:
Spamming that in each thread certainly helps your cause.
Click to expand...

to be fair, the gamespot crysis thread was less popular [or at least i think it will be so] because the fanboys will obviously converge here. but nontehless i apologize
 
iddqd said:
how the fuck did q3 fall short? its a multiplayer game and did all the deathmatch modes perfect and is still the best 4on4/1on1 game.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, QIII was freaking awesome, just it fell short of expectations by not having the Quake Story continued, yanno?

What was delivered was awesome, loved it, played it a lot. Just at the time I know a lot of people lamented the loss of a single player experience which both 1 and 2 delivered.
 
Having played the demo over and over I guess I can see where the reviewer is coming from. That's exactly the impression the demo left me. Sorry Borys, it's a good game, a great looking game (although unless you can play it with all settings maxed out, including AA and AF, it still doesn't strike me as a title that's a whole generation ahead of what other games / developers have been doing recently. Crysis has it all, but we've already seen games using parts of the technologies it uses, so yeah ...), but it still suffers from the same problem Far Cry and other modern shooters do. Poor (or not so great, if you find the word poor offensive) AI being one of them.
 
So it starts out awesome, then goes limp towards the end as they abandon the very things that made the first part of the game awesome?

Goddamnit, not again Crytek :(
 
8's a good score, and along with the other reviews it's certainly worth a try. It's somewhat annoying that they replicated Far Cry's monsters appearing halfway through (and people wonder why it gets confused for Far Cry 2) since it wasn't done that well
 
Roat said:
8's a good score, and along with the other reviews it's certainly worth a try. It's somewhat annoying that they replicated Far Cry's monsters appearing halfway through (and people wonder why it gets confused for Far Cry 2) since it wasn't done that well
Click to expand...

I didn't have any objection to the monsters in Far Cry. Yes they were a generic, but boy were those bastards hard to fight. Some of the monster levels such as where you're dumped on an island with just a pistol and an island full of trigens were brutal.

While the AI in FC wasn't perfect I thought it was pretty challenging all the same. Unlike most games it didn't "cheat" with spawns or whatnot which meant it had to think on its feet the whole time.

I didn't get the impression from playing Crysis that the AI was stupid. It had a few glitches and did some dumb things but generally it was okay. Besides, part of the fun in this sort of game is finding weaknesses in the AI and exploiting them. For example I discovered they're not too smart at finding you when you hide under walkways making it easy to shoot them from underneath.
 
For what it's worth, I didn't find the game particularly enjoyable but I'm still glad it's released simply from a technical standpoint.
 
Mmm from playing the tweaked demo with the alien they are an absolute annoyance to fight not fun at all and as i suspected Crytek again pull a half time switcheroo on the player taking away most of what makes the game fun, it's freedom.

I'll buy this in a couple months when it's cheaper, as i did enjoy the demo and i really like the editor.
 
tahrikmili said:
So basically if I build the objectively best car out there but charge the same as an Airbus A800 for it, it's still bound to get perfect reviews from car magazines?
Click to expand...

awesome2.png


No, basically, if you'd build the best tuning kit out there, but it would be for a Ferrari 575M Maranello instead of your VW Golf, would you think car magazines are going to dock it points for having to own something expensive?
 
bcn-ron said:
Costs aren't constant over time. What you think is obscenely expensive now won't be in 6 to 12 months. Review scores don't get changed retroactively, so they shouldn't include factors that are known to change so quickly.
And what if a game manages to be so fucking amazing that it's worth the price of entry? Would you rate things on a 0-7 scale categorically once they cross some arbitrary cost threshold? You shouldn't, because you're punishing the same game multiple times. "It's freaking expensive to play and it's not as good, going by the reviews".
Also what medrew said. The system cost has nothing to do with the quality of the game. It's not as if the performance was poor when compared to any peers that look just as good -- there don't appear to be any PC games at the moment that squeeze the same, let alone more graphics quality out of the same system.
Click to expand...
So with your argument, if a game's online feature only works properly if you have the most expensive package of Verizon FIOS ($180/month), it should not be counted against the game? Because if you pay $180 it can be used for other games as well? or a couple of years from now that $180 could come down to $60?

If you are not willing to forgive a game for high internet bandwidth requirement that is out of reach for many people, why are you willing to do this for its video graphics requirements?

Sorry, but the performance of the game on a typical gamer machine has everything to do with quality of the game. The same way that people complain about Vista hardware requirement and count it as a negative against Vista, they should be allowed to do the same for a game that would only show its beauty when it's running on a $700 video card.
 
"Sorry, but the performance of the game on a typical gamer machine has everything to do with quality of the game. The same way that people complain about Vista hardware requirement and count it as a negative against Vista, they should be allowed to do the same for a game that would only show its beauty when it's running on a $700 video card."



Key words being "Show its beauty." The game will still run (smoothly even) and play exactly the same whether you're running Very High or medium. Whether you feel the game on medium is worth playing or not isn't really a problem with the game.
 
J-Rzez said:
They didn't take a point off for it costing you over a "G" on a machine able to play this at it's screenshots and video quality? Anyways, I agree with this score from 1up, for once.
Click to expand...
So you have played the game from beginning to end? Or are you basing this statement on the demo?

If the first statement is not the correct one then your comment is bloody stupid. As are all comments like that in review threads.



Anyway, 8/10 is solid. From the review it seems like i will enjoy this a lot just like i did with FarCry.
I agree about the GFW reviews over EGM reviews as well. GFW seem much more consistent and less likely to get caught up in the hype. That impression carries over to the podcasts as well.



Gadfly said:
Sorry, but the performance of the game on a typical gamer machine has everything to do with quality of the game. The same way that people complain about Vista hardware requirement and count it as a negative against Vista, they should be allowed to do the same for a game that would only show its beauty when it's running on a $700 video card.
Click to expand...
Not at all. The game runs on the machines that the minimum spec says it will run on. So long as it does that, then the game should not be marked down for performance, so long as it looks good for the frame rate you are getting.
This game is not unoptimized. In medium settings it runs fine on my mid-high end machine and looks AMAZING. So much better than anything else out there right now.
It's performance is representative of it's graphical qualities.

Games like GRAW get marked down because they look AND run like shit comparatively speaking. There is a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Secret Level IGN Review: 5/10
Review  2 3
137
13K
Luc2010 replied
Yakuza show IGN review: 4/10
2
76
7K
rubik's dude replied
Infinity Nikki Review - IGN (9/10) > Stellar blade: IGN 7/10
NSFW  2 3
123
9K
tTHANOSs replied
Lunar Remastered Collection | Review Thread
Opinion Review 
37
2K
Dev1lXYZ replied
Avowed | Review Thread
Analysis Review  28 29 30 31 32
2K
86K
GymWolf replied
Top Bottom