Support NeoGAF

[Rolf NB]

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?

You're building a strawman argument about something that affects gameplay and can't be circumvented, which is not only unlike Crysis's graphics demands that can be scaled, but also purely theoretical.

And no, online games don't get docked points because little Jimmy can't host a 64-slot server on his 56k modem. They get docked points when they don't work reliably for anyone.

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.

you're punishing the same game multiple times. "It's freaking expensive to play and it's not as good, going by the reviews".

.

And again, Crysis's hardware demands translate into unprecedented visuals and interactivity. There are benefits to justify the demands. So get that shitty Vista comparison out of here.

 

[AstroLad]

And reviews threads scare me. Really, you're reading this review and saying, "Shit an 8? I won't touch this trash!" I recommend that everyone with a passing interest in the genre play Crysis. On the 1UP Show I also said that I feel it does so much so right that you'll want to have played it if you're to participate in intelligent FPS discussion going forward.

There have been a lot of "reactions to reviews of ___ sicken me" types of posts recently, but I think most of them make fairly specious arguments.

"Just play it!"--Maybe some of us don't have the time or inclination to play every game that comes out. Particularly those that don't sound very appealing to us in the first place, and whose reviews have done nothing to change our disinterest. As you alluded to on an earlier podcast re that NYT article, game reviews are--for better or worse--buyer's guides. I don't see what's so offensive about there being multiple categories of buyers (e.g., those who will buy the game regardless of reviews, those who will buy the game if it gets good reviews, all the way down to those who will try the game only if it gets great reviews and those who won't buy it at all).

"8 is awesome, game is great!"--This is impossible to address directly without falling back to some degree on the notion that there is some sort of objective "8," that an 8 consistently represents a different level of quality from a 9 or 10. Obviously that's not wholly true, but to get back to the reasonableness point, I don't think there is anything wrong with some people thinking that they'll get a certain game only if it's of the highest relative quality--particularly if it's in a genre they don't generally like or if there are too many other appealing games out there.

 

[Dyno]

Eight is alright...

Eight is the true passing grade for a video game. Eight-rated games are the low-water mark not for excellence but mere acceptability. Little Chinese girls must score an eight in gymnastics school or else they are drowned in dark wells of ice-cold water. I wish the video game industry employed similar motivational tactics. Buying an eight-rated game at full price is a necessary evil to feed the industry.

Breaking it down I would guess (having played only the demo) that Crysis is fuck-pretty as hell, so the graphics (if you have the machine) are worth a 10 but the canned ham rehash of a story and run of the mill gameplay cliches are a 6 or 7 which evens the score out.

Overall if you can play this game as it's meant to be played then I don't think you will wind up disappointed with your purchase. Enjoy!!!

 

[fallout]

"8 is awesome, game is great!"--This is impossible to address directly without falling back to some degree on the notion that there is some sort of objective "8," that an 8 consistently represents a different level of quality from a 9 or 10. Obviously that's not wholly true, but to get back to the reasonableness point, I don't think there is anything wrong with some people thinking that they'll get a certain game only if it's of the highest relative quality--particularly if it's in a genre they don't generally like or if there are too many other appealing games out there.

Then read the review! If the things that the reviewer cares about don't matter as much to you, then it doesn't matter, does it?

 

[Kintaro]

I think alot of the trouble comes from the idea of a unified '1UP network score', a concept which draws in both the attempted illusion of objectivity and the stench of comparative standards. It should simply be that 'Shawn Elliot gave this an 8'. Put that on Metacritic.

Yeah, that's pretty much it right there. Especially since you (Shawn) said it yourself; most reviewers do operate eithin the 7-9 (or 7-10) framework. 1up is getting a rep for this not just on these boards despite claims to using the whole scale. So, naturally, your reviews are going to fall into that perception since it's on the same site.

On top of that, no one is going to care who reviewed it, their previous reviews, or their reviewing styles because 1up is seen as a whole. In a way, the site re-enforces that when the review says "We review one of the most anticipated PC games of the year".

I think we would all prefer it if 1up and all sites kind of switched away from the "We" stuff and kind of became known as a collection of gamers and reviews instead of a hive-mind. As it is, you're kind lumped all in together. It doesn't matter who reviewed it in the mind of most people, you're just "1up".

That was a very good review by the way. Was kind of light on the actual aspects of combat though. Things like suit abilities, types of guns, or anything else of the sort.

 

[ghst]

:lol

I love that one because it specifically targets the ability of the reviewer to write a review, but only takes into account the associated score compared to other scores found on other sites.

I don't know, I think it has a negative effect. It's too much like an empirical brand, like a calorie count on a Mars bar. Like the review is the research paper behind the scientifically conclusive score.

 

[AstroLad]

Then read the review! If the things that the reviewer cares about don't matter as much to you, then it doesn't matter, does it?

Don't get hung up on the score example; the "8 is great" meme is generally a proxy for "the game is good, sure it's maybe not as good as other games that are out, but you guys should buy it anyway!" which is what I was addressing. "8 is great" reads much better, and tbh is the far more common statement in review threads.

 

[FartOfWar]

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.

Here's the thing with multiplayer. The beta had one Power Struggle map. EA very kindly arranged three two-hour long play sessions for review purposes. While this may sound like a lot, in my mind it was nowhere near enough to come to particularly useful and insightful conclusions. I told my reviews editor (Ryan Scott) that I was willing to bet that all mp review talk would be almost entirely descriptive with little or no significant evaluation. In other words, lots of "Power Struggle is like Battlefield in that each army has access to vehicles and..." rather than the sort of critique I prefer to perform--stuff that would recognize that Power Struggle is, in part, an attempt to solve problems with "vehicle whoring," "tking for vehicles," forcing tks for vehicles," etc. and then examine the trade offs. One thing I *think* I see is that while you don't have to worry about six teammates hopping around on the runway, waiting for the Cobra, you get these extremely slow-to-start, travel-heavy, action-light phases on a few Power Struggle maps. The map might be scaled to allow jet combat in the hour-long round's final phases, but this means you're driving jeeps without guns for seeming miles only to get to CP and have a single firefight before repeating the process. If you're doing well you will eventually get access to tanks etc. If not, you're stuck in the cycle, sometimes starting with pistols until you take someone else's.

But I don't know. I'm not gonna throw this sort of thing out there with total confidence when all anyone has played is three sessions. Meanwhile if you want a descriptive overview, we have those all over 1UP.

 

[VibratingDonkey]

The last fourth of the game being more restrictive seems like a legit complaint. I kind of expected it when they began talking about spaceships n stuff. That Crytek never learn... Oh well, I don't really care, I'll just complete it once, then try out multiplayer and replay the good parts of the campaign over and over again until some awesome maps and mods come out.

And if I didn't suck at the editor, I'd try making an obstacle course for turtles.

 

[Kintaro]

Eight is alright...

Eight is the true passing grade for a video game. Eight-rated games are the low-water mark not for excellence but mere acceptability.

I know this post is seeped in sarcasm (at least, I hope so) but the problem is, it's become absolutely true for the industry and why the 1-10 scale is going to continue to kill games.

 

[LukeSmith]

You can do a Heroes of The Web segment out of the comment section.

And include some of the greatest hits from GAF.

 

[dionysus]

I'm not going to read the review, because I am a lapsed PC gamer. But I applaud 1up and Shaun's efforts in extending the scale outside of 10-7.

Now if only we could convince a major site or publication to do away with numeric scores altogether....

 

[FartOfWar]

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.

So you hate the score, and this leads you to want to hate the review?
A. I played the game over and over again and tried every difficulty level. Would you like fraps proof of AI inconsistencies? In general the AI is fantastic. Stop attemtping to perform sentence arithmetic (where you see a critical comment and then attempt to weight its value in the imaginary algorithm that results in the score attached to a review). Bad THINKER

B. See above. Crysis could have zero narrative and I'd still love it in all the ways I do. My comments on the dialogue and plot turns are not there to become -.5s or whatever in your specious calculus. Is it wrong to note that a game's dialog is bad? Many readers will have no idea going in as to how important narrative is to the game. Look at Portal. It very well could have existed as a potentially good story-free game. Story made it extra-special.

C. Who said Crysis system specs had any influence on the score?

How can the review be unjust when you aren't even aware of the claims it does and doesn't make?

 

[Kintaro]

Now if only we could convince a major site or publication to do away with numeric scores altogether....

I would actually rather sites move away from the hive-mind with excuses mentality ("We review such and such but if you disagree, point the finger at the reviewer!) and into more of a "collection of gamers/reviewers" mentality. Where the reviewer takes the stage and not the name of the site. Then, over time, you get an accurate bead on their likes and dislikes, previous reviews, etc etc.

 

[SaggyMonkey]

Here's the thing with multiplayer. The beta had one Power Struggle map. EA very kindly arranged three two-hour long play sessions for review purposes. While this may sound like a lot, in my mind it was nowhere near enough to come to particularly useful and insightful conclusions. I told my reviews editor (Ryan Scott) that I was willing to bet that all mp review talk would be almost entirely descriptive with little or no significant evaluation. In other words, lots of "Power Struggle is like Battlefield in that each army has access to vehicles and..." rather than the sort of critique I prefer to perform--stuff that would recognize that Power Struggle is, in part, an attempt to solve problems with "vehicle whoring," "tking for vehicles," forcing tks for vehicles," etc. and then examine the trade offs. One thing I *think* I see is that while you don't have to worry about six teammates hopping around on the runway, waiting for the Cobra, you get these extremely slow-to-start, travel-heavy, action-light phases on a few Power Struggle maps. The map might be scaled to allow jet combat in the hour-long round's final phases, but this means you're driving jeeps without guns for seeming miles only to get to CP and have a single firefight before repeating the process. If you're doing well you will eventually get access to tanks etc. If not, you're stuck in the cycle, sometimes starting with pistols until you take someone else's.

But I don't know. I'm not gonna throw this sort of thing out there with total confidence when all anyone has played is three sessions. Meanwhile if you want a descriptive overview, we have those all over 1UP.

Aieee.. that sorta sounds horrible for multiplayer. Maps built around a vehicle people don't have 'til the end of the round? This is what I hated about many of the larger Lost Planet maps, is that since your movement was so slow it took you ages to get back to the fray after a respawn. (especially if the rest of your team took the vehicles first)

This is exactly why people should take a little care and review this stuff separately.

 

[ghst]

Now if only we could convince a major site or publication to do away with numeric scores altogether....

That happened with GFW (or CGW back then), apparently it resulted in a clusterfuck of nerd rage.

Has anyone at GFW considered scoring out of say '7', In single whole digit increments? It seems like a decent compromise between the standard numeric scale, and more traditional, vaguer film style review scores. Aswell as putting you at a certain mathematical distance from the assumptions based around the 20 point scale (.5 incremental) scale.

 

[FartOfWar]

So, when is Cevat's follow-up GFW interview scheduled for?

The next GFW magazine. We're trying to get post mortems with the dev teams of every major release this season. Some of em are mad at us though. Cevat's a fucking champ, though. Seriously, they made a fantastic game.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

The next GFW magazine. We're trying to get post mortems with the dev teams of every major release this season. Some of em are mad at us though. Cevat's a fucking champ, though. Seriously, they made a fantastic game.

He always seemed like a pretty cool guy from the interviews I've seen with him. Looking forward to the interview.

 

[AstroLad]

Getting OT here, but here's the thing relating to scores. Going to defend what is on GAF (and kotaku, or whoever the fuck wrote that reviews are broken article) the indefensible.

We are all limited in what we can buy and play--be it by time, money, or anything else. These constraints mean that while it might seem a pity observation to sarcastically observe, "so basically X is better than Y," for every single person for whom X and Y are choices, that is an actual substantive decision that has to be made. There are so many games and so many systems that people don't want to necessarily comb through multiple reviews in full (or play demos, or buy games and return them) to help them reach this decision.

They're already time limited in what they can play, why would they further limit themselves any more than is necessary just so they can have a GAF-approved level of appreciation for every little nuance in Games X & Y before making their decisions. Most people go see movies based on a thumbs up or thumbs down; they buy TVs based on how it looks in-store, etc. They just don't have the time or the patience to gain an appreciation for every enthusiast insight before making a decision. And whether they read review text or not, scores aid them in their comparisons.

The reason people would even consult reviews in the first place is most likely because they are time limited, so I find the cries for thorough reading of all major reviews and playing of demos, etc. a bit confounding as anything other than typical enthusiast solipsism.

 

[GeneralIroh]

Actually I think Shawn's review is legit. Its pretty stupid of me getting worked up over a number score especially when pc is different from the 360.
Its too bad crytek haven't really learned their lesson with the monsters. Hopefully Far Cry 2 will be better.
I bet the ai still can't maneuver out of the way in a jeep.

I think the cs style of purchasing vehicles sounds good though.

 

[dionysus]

Astrolad, could the time constrained consumer not spare the time to read the Highs and Lows of a game, similar to how CARandDRIVER do it in their car critiques. In fact, I believe the overall score of most sites and publications is right next to a sentence on the highs and lows in different categories, like graphics, story, sound, etc.

Putting a score there suggests to most an objective scale that allows comparisons to other scores. Yet, this scale isn't objective and really the only useful comparisons that can be drawn from it are to scores from the same reviewer.

 

[AstroLad]

Putting a score there suggests to most an objective scale that allows comparisons to other scores. Yet, this scale isn't objective and really the only useful comparisons that can be drawn from it are to scores from the same reviewer.

But just because it's flawed doesn't mean it's useless. Should I really use star reviews to compare restaurants? Maybe not. What is an "objective" 5 after all? EVERYONE IS BIAS. But I still use them and on the whole I think it's helped me reach better decisions.

 

[mambadragon]

They're already time limited in what they can play, why would they further limit themselves any more than is necessary just so they can have a GAF-approved level of appreciation for every little nuance in Games X & Y before making their decisions. Most people go see movies based on a thumbs up or thumbs down; they buy TVs based on how it looks in-store, etc. They just don't have the time or the patience to gain an appreciation for every enthusiast insight before making a decision. And whether they read review text or not, scores aid them in their comparisons.

I see what you're saying, but why do scores in particular matter to those of us GAFers who have more than enough time to read the reviews in full. You'd think if anything we'd be informed enough to know how meaningless a score is and instead discuss the actual merits detailed in a review rather than what score those merits (viewed as simple pluses and minuses) deserve.

It's actually probably an ego thing we have to assign "our score" and think that others actually care. Or more likely we're not as smart as we think we are and can only express our opinions on a game through a number.

Whatever it is, it's a waste of time and makes us all look like Heroes of the Web, and I'm probably worst for thinking about it.

 

[AstroLad]

I see what you're saying, but why do scores in particular matter to those of us GAFers who have more than enough time to read the reviews in full. You'd think if anything we'd be informed enough to know how meaningless a score is and instead discuss the actual merits detailed in a review rather than what score those merits (viewed as simple pluses and minuses) deserve.

I think the reason people go apeshit over scores is that they recognize that scores alone do have some effect on sales. And GAF pretty much exists to discuss things that affect sales, even if the thread isn't directly about sales. And yes, that is often Heroes-of-the-Web-level stuff, but thankfully it's often pretty funny too.

But what you're saying is what I was getting at in my post--enthusiasts usually demand more information, and more nuanced information, to consider when making their purchases. I just don't find it offensive that some people might be content with less information.

 

[Druz]

Even GAF isn't immune to threads full of fucking babies.

 

[AIRic]

Look like all Crysis problems could easily be fixed with a patch, so that's a great news! The bad news is that my PC (A64 3000+ with 6600GT) has aged horribly for next-gen games and I'm sure I can't even play it on the lowest settings...

 

[KyanMehwulfe]

"And like tidus said, how the hell can a game that scored so high on other websites and magazines get an 8? Plz get someone who knows how to write reviews to review this. This guy is just bringing undeserved shame to this game. He has no idea what he's talking about. Expert reviewer my ass."

Shit man... If -Tidus- said it... We don't want him to Limit Break or anything...


The review for me is by far the most useful. GameSpot and IGN's will help sell games, but Shawn's actually provides the Crysis fans here some genuine criticism.

And, really, anyone that played the demo on High isn't going to be swayed anyhow. They already know how fuckawesome the sandbox element is. We'll just replay the first 5-8 hours over and over instead of the full game, I suppose. Shawn said as much; perhaps from ad nauseum, he just never focused on it as much (I thought he'd do about three paragraphs of sandbox dynamic details and examples) since there were some other critcal areas to focus on (which other reviews seemed to ignore or gloss over).

 

[the1aser]

A problem with 1up's reviews, IMO, is that they use the GFW reviews (space-limited) online. If you watch the 1up Show and listen to all their podcasts, it's cool, because the totality of their coverage gives you a pretty good feel for their view of the game. But if you just rely on the online review itself then...yeah, it can skimp on some pretty fundamental details.

 

[bigmit3737]

I think alot of the trouble comes from the idea of a unified '1UP network score', a concept which draws in both the attempted illusion of objectivity and the stench of comparative standards. It should simply be that 'Shawn Elliot gave this an 8'. Put that on Metacritic.

That is exactly the problem. Everyone looks at Halo's score or COD score and compares.

 

[GeneralIroh]

Look like all Crysis problems could easily be fixed with a patch, so that's a great news! The bad news is that my PC (A64 3000+ with 6600GT) has aged horribly for next-gen games and I'm sure I can't even play it on the lowest settings...

Do you think the AI bugs can be fixed by a patch?
I hope Shawn ask Cavet about the whole kpa noticing blood on the leaf thing.

 

[Dyno]

I know this post is seeped in sarcasm (at least, I hope so) but the problem is, it's become absolutely true for the industry and why the 1-10 scale is going to continue to kill games.

I stand by my rating metric. It takes into account all bullshit and moneyhats.

6 or Less - absolute shit sandwich with a side order of shit and a frosty shit-shake.

7 - flawed and/or generic but not broken. EA and Ubisoft, you live here.

8 - Decent, possessing soul. A 6 in any other kind of truth-based marking system.

9 - Great fucking game. They don't hate our freedom, they are jealous of our 9 rated games.

10 - As 9 but the reviewer is on the payroll. World leaders get bought off so don't think it doesn't happen.

What I like about this system is that there is only 5 numbers to remember rather than 10, which is fine because you almost never, ever see those other 5 numbers.

 

[Alf-Life]

nm

 

[Firestreak]

Why the fuck would you want them to take system requirements into account?

If I have to spend 1000 bucks upgrading my PC, then I realize that I'm spending $1000 bucks. I have the ability to figure out if I want to or not without the reviewer telling me how much value the game is I'd be upgrading. Just tell me how good it is and let me figure it out. Because if I interpret the rating as being based on if I had the PC already, it would make me punish the game twice. First for the deflated review and again for deciding if it was worth it based on said deflated review.

It's retarded.

 

[zenbot]

Shawn's and skip's reviews are some of the only ones I will actively seek out for games that I will likely never play, for their insight into what makes those games really tick, and how they matter to the medium. The scores on their reviews, I find, are mostly vestigial; it's a little weird to see people fixating on them.

Anyway, lovely review, as ever, Shawn. Thanks for writing stuff worth reading .

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

Why the fuck would you want them to take system requirements into account?

If I have to spend 1000 bucks upgrading my PC, then I realize that I'm spending $1000 bucks. I have the ability to figure out if I want to or not without the reviewer telling me how much value the game is I'd be upgrading. Just tell me how good it is and let me figure it out. Because if I interpret the rating as being based on if I had the PC already, it would make me punish the game twice. First for the deflated review and again for deciding if it was worth it based on said deflated review.

It's retarded.

Seriously. It's not the reviewers place to tell someone if a game is worth upgrading for. It's the reviewers place to tell someone the quality of a game so that the CONSUMER can decide if its worth upgrading for.

 

[Baryn]

Why the fuck would you want them to take system requirements into account?

If I have to spend 1000 bucks upgrading my PC, then I realize that I'm spending $1000 bucks. I have the ability to figure out if I want to or not without the reviewer telling me how much value the game is I'd be upgrading. Just tell me how good it is and let me figure it out. Because if I interpret the rating as being based on if I had the PC already, it would make me punish the game twice. First for the deflated review and again for deciding if it was worth it based on said deflated review.

It's retarded.

Perhaps with other games, but with a monster like Crysis, it's warranted.

 

[Foxtastical]

I'm gonna be a banana ryda for a second.

Stop the good writing Shawn. Making the rest of us look like butts. But seriously, good stuff. The user responses are gold.

 

[KyanMehwulfe]

Perhaps with other games, but with a monster like Crysis, it's warranted.

I don't know, I'm unsure if I still would. It's one thing if a game performs like shit because it's not designed well, but if it genuinely is a beast because it looks incredible -- I'd have a hard time marking marks. It's very different than if the game was poorly coded or optimized, which is definitely something I'd hold against a game.

I mean, so imagine you have the most amazing game, revolutionary (example; not using Crysis here), a 10 out of 10, but you're going to mark it 9 out of 10 just because it's a tech beast even though its story and gameplay shits on most 9 games? I wouldn't be able to dock marks for justified high requirements; especially when in 6 months it'll be fairly easy to play at max settings and that 10/10 game is still the same game.

You want a editorial review of a game experience or a consumer report? The price of entry being held against game has no place in the former.

 

[Thunderbear]

Every 1up review this fall with the exception of COD4 I have disagreed with. Completely over 1up.

 

[FartOfWar]

Every 1up review this fall with the exception of COD4 I have disagreed with. Completely over 1up.

So you beat Crysis today?

 

[erick]

So you hate the score, and this leads you to want to hate the review?
A. I played the game over and over again and tried every difficulty level. Would you like fraps proof of AI inconsistencies? In general the AI is fantastic. Stop attemtping to perform sentence arithmetic (where you see a critical comment and then attempt to weight its value in the imaginary algorithm that results in the score attached to a review). Bad THINKER

B. See above. Crysis could have zero narrative and I'd still love it in all the ways I do. My comments on the dialogue and plot turns are not there to become -.5s or whatever in your specious calculus. Is it wrong to note that a game's dialog is bad? Many readers will have no idea going in as to how important narrative is to the game. Look at Portal. It very well could have existed as a potentially good story-free game. Story made it extra-special.

C. Who said Crysis system specs had any influence on the score?

How can the review be unjust when you aren't even aware of the claims it does and doesn't make?

1UP's Gears of War review (X360)
http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3154958&sec=REVIEWS

You can always find reasons not to give a game a review score of 10. Control issues (Gears of War has that). A.I. problems (that, too). Bad dialogue or storytelling (yes on both). Linear levels, online lag, limited modes (yup, yup, and yup). But as I was playing through the game, I found one consistently good feature: It was constantly impressing the hell out of me.

Editor's rating: 10

'Nuff said.

 

[Tieno]

'Nuff said.

When Gears game out Shawn said he would give it an 8-8.5, there's even an EGMLive where he discusses the game with Shoe.

 

[CastleBravo]

I finished Crysis last night, and I think it's one of the finest FPS games I've ever played. I'm not ready to say it's THE best FPS, but it's definitely up there with the big dogs. Yes, it has a few problems with hit detection, dumb AI in certain areas, and a few minor bugs, but, for the most part, they don't really detract from the overall experience.

And yeah, the last 1/3rd of the game is linear, but, in my opinion, the level design is still superb - particularly the last level (which I won't spoil), but I thought it was spectacular despite being straightforward. Crysis has some amazing set pieces that I think are on par with stuff you see in CoD4, HL2, Bioshock, or any of the top-tier shooters.

 

[erick]

When Gears game out Shawn said he would give it an 8-8.5, there's even an EGMLive where he discusses the game with Shoe.

You may be completely correct. BUT. GoW also suffered from control issues and linear levels.
Crysis has no control issues and in fact it is a complete antithesis of linear (except for the final part, granted).

If not more, this should have earned it the extra .5 or 1 that kept it from getting a 9.

 

[Tieno]

You may be completely correct. BUT. GoW also suffered from control issues and linear levels.
Crysis does not. If not more, it should have earned it the extra .5 or 1 that kept it from getting a 9.

I am correct, because I clearly remember that podcast. It's up to the reviewer for how he feels about the total experience.

 

[Ventrue]

You may be completely correct. BUT. GoW also suffered from control issues and linear levels.
Crysis has no control issues and in fact it is a complete antithesis of linear (except for the final part, granted).

If not more, this should have earned it the extra .5 or 1 that kept it from getting a 9.

Stop attemtping to perform sentence arithmetic (where you see a critical comment and then attempt to weight its value in the imaginary algorithm that results in the score attached to a review). Bad THINKER

A review is subjective, not objective. You can't compare very specific instances across games. A review score should be an overall of how a reviewer feels about a game, not a series of check boxes.

 

[evlcookie]

You may be completely correct. BUT. GoW also suffered from control issues and linear levels.
Crysis has no control issues and in fact it is a complete antithesis of linear (except for the final part, granted).

If not more, this should have earned it the extra .5 or 1 that kept it from getting a 9.

It's a different reviewer having a different opinion on a different game, they are allowed to give whatever the fuck score they feel like. Getting picky over a .5 or a 1 is just fucking insane, go get some sunshine.

 

[jet1911]

'Nuff said.

They were not reviewed by the same person, you can't compare the two like that.

The over analysis of reviews that have been going on around here lately is really annoying.

 

[Slavik81]

You may be completely correct. BUT. GoW also suffered from control issues and linear levels.
Crysis has no control issues and in fact it is a complete antithesis of linear (except for the final part, granted).

If not more, this should have earned it the extra .5 or 1 that kept it from getting a 9.

The 8.0 Shawn Elliot gave Crysis gives more credibility to the quality of Crysis than most of the 9s and 10s given out by the rest of 1UP lend to their respective games. Just because Shoe overrated Gears doesn't mean Shawn should rate Crysis higher.

There's definitely a lack of consistency in scoring criteria at 1UP, particularly between the GFW-based reviews and the EGM-based reviews.

 

[Dartastic]

Damn that was a well written review.