Support NeoGAF

[rollingstart]

it was a good review.

I am still going to pick it up as while I think a full experience matter in a game, the set pieces crysis has at points interest me more than the full story and all that.

 

[Leonsito]

I'm fucking tired of this: "To run this game you need a $4000 PC lololol"

This game deserves 9+ scores for the fun it provides, the game is the same in the low settings, the same weapons, the same enemies, the same maps, ffs stop the bs.

 

[Draft]

Is that Contra boss thing a compliment?

Cause uh... Contra has the sickest bosses.

 

[CurlySaysX]

Was the game too hard for them or something?

 

[Metalmurphy]

*sheesh* since when is 8 a bad score?

 

[rebel^pudding]

does anyone take 1up network reviews serious anymore?

 

[Kestastrophe]

The game scored decent, but it seemed like the review took some shots at the Crytek President. Pretty harsh review IMO, especially considering that Gamespot (the site that loves to give the lowest score) gave it a 9.5.

 

[lastendconductor]

Is that Contra boss thing a compliment?

Cause uh... Contra has the sickest bosses.

Yeah, since when did Contra style bosses became bad? they're fucking awesome!!

 

[rebel^pudding]

The game scored decent, but it seemed like the review took some shots at the Crytek President. Pretty harsh review IMO, especially considering that Gamespot (the site that loves to give the lowest score) gave it a 9.5.

im pretty sure thats 1up?

 

[bigmit3737]

Well it all comes down to opinion. He hated the last bit it seems.
Review scores tend to be all over the place.

I think they were the ones that gave Dreamfall a 4, which a lot of people argued with.

 

[VonGak!]

im pretty sure thats 1up?

Both are quite inconsistent with their scores making it mandatory to read the reviews word for word and take the reporters name into consideration.

 

[hiryu]

Stinks hearing about the ending being a letdown. The demo is so good too. People saying you need a $3,000 or $4,000 computer to run this well are full of shit. I just upgraded my PC for a grand and the only thing I kept were the hard drives, monitor, keyboard, and mouse. I run the Crysis demo at 1920x1080 with the "hacked" config files and the game runs perfectly smooth and is beautiful.

 

[CAVE343]

Well, I'm picking it up and I can't wait!

 

[PetriP-TNT]

Somewhat spoilerish things coming up:

As soon as I saw the Zero-G ship thing video, I knew that some part of the game (lets say "end" now, as I am not sure) would suck. Crysis is that kind of game that just wouldnt work indoors very well and especially something as typical as alien spaceship full of goo, it was bit obvious. I'd just stick with the huge island playground

 

[CassSept]

I guess 8 sounds about right, i didnt expect Crysis to be anything more than just a showcase of new engine. Good review, one of few times i agree with 1up's score

Spoiler

So basically... oh wait
When was that banned O__o'

 

[PnCIa]

:lol :lol :lol :lol
Yeah right an 8. That demo alone is so much fun, i would easily give it a 9.

 

[Tieno]

The game scored decent, but it seemed like the review took some shots at the Crytek President. Pretty harsh review IMO, especially considering that Gamespot (the site that loves to give the lowest score) gave it a 9.5.

Shawn Elliot, the guy who did the 1up review, also did an interview with the president of Crytek a few GFW episodes ago. It was a very good interview, in it the promise was basically that Crysis is a bombshell with a PhD and it seems Shawn is referring to that interview a bit and addressing some of the claims that were made.

Both are quite inconsistent with their scores making it mandatory to read the reviews word for word and take the reporters name into consideration.

Which is the only way to take reviews imo, because in the end they're an opinion of someone. I find it harder to gauge a review when I'm not familiar with the reviewer.

 

[methane47]

I really dislike 1up.com

Spoiler

cout << gafMeme("Crysis", "Perfect Dark Zero")

 

[ElectricBlue187]

I just wanted to say I told ya so

 

[PnCIa]

Shawn Elliot, the guy who did the 1up review, also did an interview with the president of Crytek a few GFW episodes ago. It was a very good interview, in it the promise was basically that Crysis is a bombshell with a PhD and it seems Shawn is referring to that interview a bit and addressing some of the claims that were made.

So when it fits their needs, they also take the developers claims before the release into consideration?! Halo 2 should´ve been crushed then.

 

[Tieno]

So when it fits their needs, they also take the developers claims before the release into consideration?! Halo 2 should´ve been crushed then.

Please drop the stupid. A reviewer approaches a review how he sees fit, I don't know if he docked because those claims were made, he just addressed some of them. Just to please your tin foil hat, Shawn isn't that much of a fan of Halo and I'm sure he likes Crysis more, happy?

 

[dark_preacher]

I guess 8 sounds about right, i didnt expect Crysis to be anything more than just a showcase of new engine. Good review, one of few times i agree with 1up's score

Spoiler

So basically... oh wait
When was that banned O__o'

you do realize even pretending to make the joke is bannable, right?

 

[PnCIa]

Please drop the stupid. A reviewer approaches a review how he sees fit, I don't know if he docked points because those claims were made, he just addressed some of them. Just to please your tin foil hat, Shawn isn't that much of a fan of Halo and I'm sure he likes Crysis more, happy?

It doesn´t matter if Shawn is a Halo fan. The Halo 2 comparision was only used as an example that in this case, no one looked back at what Bungie talked about during the development. I don´t want to compare Crysis with Halo 2 here , just wanted to point out that such a practice in reviews isn´t usual.

 

[1-D_FTW]

I'm fucking tired of this: "To run this game you need a $4000 PC lololol"

This game deserves 9+ scores for the fun it provides, the game is the same in the low settings, the same weapons, the same enemies, the same maps, ffs stop the bs.

It's one of the common trolls you seem to get in every high profile pc thread. If GAF was a little more PC centric, this would be one of the newly bannable offenses. It contributes nothing to threads and, as every pc gamer knows, is complete non-sense. Either you build your own PCs or you should stick to consoles. And if you build your own, 2000 dollars is using extravagant parts.

EDIT: Or the obligatory follow-up quote of "Yep. That's why I quit gaming, too."

 

[Tieno]

It doesn´t matter if Shawn is a Halo fan. The Halo 2 comparision was only used as an example that in this case, no one looked back at what Bungie talked about during the development. I don´t want to compare Crysis with Halo 2 here , just wanted to point out that such a practice in reviews isn´t usual.

Halo 2 is a long time ago so I can't gauge how accurate your memory is, I do remember Bungie getting criticized for stuff like Halo 2 not taking place on earth that much (which the hype made you believe would be the case). I don't think it's out of place for Shawn, it was a very 1 on 1 interview and I see it more as an approach to write a review than the reason why he had some issues.

 

[spwolf]

haha

 

[Teknopathetic]

Shawn's been a very excited about Crysis for awhile, if you listen to GFW Radio. His main complaint with the end is not even a new one from him regarding games in general, though. A few weeks ago, I do believe he had this same complaint with another FPS (Maybe it was Call of Duty? Don't recall exactly), where they spend a good fraction of the game "teaching" you that you can do this and that and then put you in a situation where what you've learned from playing the game SHOULD apply, but then magically does not.

Seems like a pet peeve of his.

 

[Draft]

Bitches, PLEASE.

Come on now. It's not even a bad score or review. So it goes a little on rails at the end. Well now you know. And knowing is something something.

Consider: naught but a month ago, many of you were dismissing Crysis as a tech demo. A piece of shiny refuse to be oohed and awwed and then tossed in a bin until a real developer got their hands on the technology. And now the worst thing we can say about it is it's not the best game ever. Rejoice.

 

[ghst]

If GAF was a little more PC centric, this would be one of the newly bannable offenses.

I'm fully proposing this notion.

 

[DrXym]

I'm fucking tired of this: "To run this game you need a $4000 PC lololol"

This game deserves 9+ scores for the fun it provides, the game is the same in the low settings, the same weapons, the same enemies, the same maps, ffs stop the bs.

If the demo is a fair indicator then it's not the same on the lowest settings. Rocks, trees and other assets pop into view on the low settings. This is annoying by itself.

What is more annoying is that soldiers do not pop into view, so sometimes you'll see a soldier from a long way off, zoom in with the binoculars and suddenly he's not there. Why? Because as you zoom in, a rock pops into view and blocks your view of him. So you know he's there but you shouldn't because he was actually hiding behind a rock. This ruins the element of surprise and is also just annoying.

The lowest acceptable setting is medium and even that suffers from too much popping.

I think this is the sort of game that really needs high settings to appreciate properly.

 

[Rahk]

Great review. I wish people would stop comparing and complaining about the slight differences in review scores from various sites. The score actually reflects the legitimate problems the text brings up.

The user reviews are also great:

I love how your current favorite games are all naruto related, not sure how 1up thought you were entitled to have an opinion, with ****ty taste like that. Try playing all aspects of the game *COUGH MULTIPLAYER LOL COUGH* before you write a review, and try some writing classes while your at it.

This person's review score of 10 is also clearly reflected by the text.

 

[v1cious]

IGN gave it a 9.4... so it's as good as Ratchet & Clank.

 

[Tieno]

Great review. I wish people would stop comparing and complaining about the slight differences in review scores from various sites. The score actually reflects the legitimate problems the text brings up.

The user reviews are also great:

This person's review score of 10 is also clearly reflected by the text.

Shawn Elliott

The Whiskey Nerd's Peter Parker, Shawn specializes in shooters, griefing war veterans during hardcore flight sims, and freestyle rap battles over instant messenger clients.

Current Favorites: Naruto: Ultimate Ninja 2, Naruto Ninja Council 3, Naruto Uzuamaki Chronicles
http://www.1up.com/do/minisite?cId=3158991#4551247
hehehe

 

[bigmit3737]

Great review. I wish people would stop comparing and complaining about the slight differences in review scores from various sites. The score actually reflects the legitimate problems the text brings up.

The user reviews are also great:

This person's review score of 10 is also clearly reflected by the text.

What's the deal with the multiplayer though? Are any of the reviews going to mention something about the multiplayer? I am curious about how it plays out.

 

[Carl2282]

well I'll have to try the demo in xp and see how it runs. this game killed my 8800 gts in dx10. I don't know I'm torn between playing this game at lower settings or waiting acouple months till the next round of solid gpu's come out.

 

[GSG Flash]

I don't understand why people are complaining about the score, 1up is pretty insignificant beside sites like IGN and Gamespot and both of them gave this game a nice score over 9.0.

 

[TONX]

IGN gave it a 9.4... so it's as good as Ratchet & Clank.

Stop with the irrelevant comparisons, people! half of GAF is gonna get banned at this point.

 

[Rahk]

Shawn Elliott

The Whiskey Nerd's Peter Parker, Shawn specializes in shooters, griefing war veterans during hardcore flight sims, and freestyle rap battles over instant messenger clients.

Current Favorites: Naruto: Ultimate Ninja 2, Naruto Ninja Council 3, Naruto Uzuamaki Chronicles
http://www.1up.com/do/minisite?cId=3158991#4551247
hehehe

I was wondering where he found that. Awesome. :lol

What's the deal with the multiplayer though? Are any of the reviews going to mention something about the multiplayer? I am curious about how it plays out.

At the end of the 1up review: "[EDITOR'S NOTE: Multiplayer sidebar coming soon -- check back later in the day for this important update. Note that this won't affect the score.]"

I'm not exactly sure what that means though.

IGN gave it a 9.4... so it's as good as Ratchet & Clank.

Wow. Is that the third one for this thread? I rarely read review threads so I never realised it was this common. Hopefully it won't be for long, it's already quite annoying.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

I hate to say it, but I told you so. The icy levels look LAME AS FUCKING HELL.

 

[AstroLad]

Har, what a bait-and-switch. Certainly 8 isn't a bad score, but I trust Mr. Shawn Elliot's reviews and the text itself makes me doubt whether this is really the great single-player experience Cevat was touting on the podcast. I'll still probably pick it up, but it makes the wait for my second 7950gtx that much easier.

 

[keanerie]

It doesn´t matter if Shawn is a Halo fan. The Halo 2 comparision was only used as an example that in this case, no one looked back at what Bungie talked about during the development. I don´t want to compare Crysis with Halo 2 here , just wanted to point out that such a practice in reviews isn´t usual.

The use of the Crytek interview in the story was mostly as a hook/intro for the greater issues at hand in the actual evaluation of the game. He wasn't saying "hey I should give them a bad score (it wasn't a bad score either way) because they didn't live up to those promises) but "hey that guy said this - now, does his game live up to those claims? let's talk about it."

 

[erick]

I completely hated the 1UP review

Maybe I've gone a bit fanboy, but I have the following gripes with that score:

8 instead of a 10 denotes a flawed masterpiece in my book. Crysis does not deserve that score for the following reasons:

A) At no time during my gametime did any soldier just stand around while I shot at him, unlike mentioned in the review. Hint: AI "sees" over a considerably shorter distance in the EASY mode. Bad reviewer.

B) Somebody is under the illusion that shooters MUST come with a superb storyline. Shooters are about shooting enemies and stuff in a way that is as challenging and fun as it gets - and Crysis provides. You only feel the need for a good story if the gameplay is not engaging enough (see Geometry Wars - does it need a storyline to be an excellent, fun game? Or Serious Sam 1 for that matter). Superb storylines, while they DO add to the overall experience and should be taken into account when considering a higher score, should NOT detract points because they are NOT a requirement of the genre and are instead to be expected from the RPG or point&click adventure genres for example.

C) The fact that Crysis demands a powerful PC should NOT detract from its score. This argument is valid only when a game is badly optimized and wants overly powerful systems to show off moderate or worse graphics. Have you ever seen any 3D game remotely as beautiful as Crysis? Crysis makes your iron count. You pay money for a superb PC, you get superb, never-before-seen levels of graphics. Unlike Hellgate: London for example, which looks hideous even on a $2000 PC.

So, for these reasons, I think that 1UP's review is unjust.

 

[water_wendi]

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.

So was Strike Commander. This is the nature of PC gaming.

 

[Giganticus]

I completely hated the 1UP review

Maybe I've gone a bit fanboy, but I have the following gripes with that score:

8 instead of a 10 denotes a flawed masterpiece in my book. Crysis does not deserve that score for the following reasons:

A) At no time during my gametime did any soldier just stand around while I shot at him, unlike mentioned in the review. Hint: AI "sees" over a considerably shorter distance in the EASY mode. Bad reviewer.

B) Somebody is under the illusion, that shooters MUST come with a superb storyline. Shooters are about shooting enemies and stuff in a way that is as challenging and fun as it gets - and Crysis provides. You only feel the need for a good story if the gameplay is not engaging enough (see Geometry Wars - does it need a storyline to be an excellent, fun game? Or Serious Sam 1 for that matter). Superb storylines, while they DO add to the overall experience and should be taken into account when considering a higher score, should NOT detract points because they are NOT a requirement of the genre and are instead to be expected from the RPG or point&click adventure genres for example.

C) The fact that Crysis demands a powerful PC should NOT detract from its score. This argument is valid only when a game is badly optimized and wants overly powerful systems to show off moderate or worse graphics. Have you ever seen any 3D game remotely as beautiful as Crysis? Crysis makes your iron count. You pay money for a superb PC, you get superb, never-before-seen levels of graphics. Unlike Hellgate: London for example, which looks hideous even on a $2000 PC.

So, for these reasons, I think that 1UP's review is unjust.

a) AI can sometimes break, this happens quite a bit in the Crysis demo for me at the second-highest difficulty. Koreans will chase you into the the water and drown for example, or if you climb onto a boat they are in they'll drive all the way to land before actually doing anything to you, so you get a free boat ride.

b) Looks like Elliott agrees in a way, but he says the end of the game changes from the initial style and is crap as a result. Why the paradigm shift in the game play from the old formula? Purely to hold up the alien invasion storyline. Essentially the initial concept of the game has overruled the requirement for good gameplay; like in Far Cry the unique open-ended playing style built up through the course of the game is scrapped to put in shitty enemies that merely piss you off just to prop up the mad scientist storyline. At this point, you can blame the story and then point out it isn't any good anyway so there was no point sacrificing the game.

c) Agree. System requirements should only be taken into account if the game runs poorly on those requirements or just isn't worth it.

 

[erick]

a) AI can sometimes break, this happens quite a bit in the Crysis demo for me at the second-highest difficulty. Koreans will chase you into the the water and drown for example, or if you climb onto a boat they are in they'll drive all the way to land before actually doing anything to you, so you get a free boat ride.

I played the game itself, and a lot of the inconsistencies have disappeared, including the levitating treestumps and what not . I can assure you that during the 8 hours I have spent on the game, not once did I notice something wrong with the AI. Fixed.

EDIT: actually, I think the free boat-ride stuff cannot be fixed. Although, if it's of any consolation, the real game does not see you climbing on a boat just to get your kicks. You have much, much more negaging things to do

b) Looks like Elliott agrees in a way, but he says the end of the game changes from the initial style and is crap as a result. Why the paradigm shift in the game play from the old formula? Purely to hold up the alien invasion storyline. Essentially the initial concept of the game has overruled the requirement for good gameplay; like in Far Cry the unique open-ended playing style built up through the course of the game is scrapped to put in shitty enemies that merely piss you off just to prop up the mad scientist storyline. At this point, you can blame the story and then point out it isn't any good anyway so there was no point sacrificing the game.

Alright, I can accept that. Gameplay should not bow to the requirements of the story, it was ever thus (except for those pesky Japanese game makers who manage to ruin every sound bit of game-making logic).

 

[AfunkyArcadeStick]

Tieno is saying bye to me

 

[Tieno]

Bye AfunkyArcadeStick

 

[WARCOCK]

Ugh, 1up should stick to reviewing console games.

 

[Psychotext]

Tieno is saying bye to me

lol... nice catch. :lol

 

[the1aser]

C) The fact that Crysis demands a powerful PC should NOT detract from its score. This argument is valid only when a game is badly optimized and wants overly powerful systems to show off moderate or worse graphics. Have you ever seen any 3D game remotely as beautiful as Crysis? Crysis makes your iron count. You pay money for a superb PC, you get superb, never-before-seen levels of graphics. Unlike Hellgate: London for example, which looks hideous even on a $2000 PC.

Where is it suggested that the score was impacted by the system requirements?

It seems pretty clear to me that major flaw of the game from the reviewer's perspect was that, after delivering a game full of freedom, the climax introduces a series of artificial limitations on that freedom, inconsistent with what you had been able to do previously, sending you along a rail shooter to the end.

The question I have is whether is just the jarring dissonance of this change in styles which makes Crysis 'flawed', or whether it's the fact that a) it goes for the rail shooter route and b) doesn't do it very well. Now the review says that it's the latter - hard to fault that if so, and this is the guy who loves Episode 2 so it's not like he's predisposed to hate that style of game.

Personally I'm still going to do what I'd always planned to do - buy Crysis in a year when I upgrade my PC.