PCGamer Reviews Crysis

I do take back what I said about optimisation IF they have better fps using the currently unavailable dual/quad core optimisations. It already runs good on my rig.
 
Gorgon said:
excellent..... I told you this is going to score over 95%.

wait for gamespot and IGN rating now....
Click to expand...

Ever since Gamespot dropped the .1 increments for there score and settled for .5 increments, I haven't been paying as much attention to their ratings. They no longer have scores that are unique amongst most of their competition. I can already predict Crysis getting a 9.5 from them.

Anyways, what's surprising me about this review is the length of the game: 12 hours. Considering how large the maps can get, I was expecting something a little longer than that. It took me about 45 minutes to an hour just to complete the demo.
 
A True Canadian said:
Anyways, what's surprising me about this review is the length of the game: 12 hours. Considering how large the maps can get, I was expecting something a little longer than that. It took me about 45 minutes to an hour just to complete the demo.
Click to expand...

Could just be the average time to complete on normal/medium not including all of the side missions. Time to complete would depend on your style, rather you go straight through the required missions running-and-gunning, or going stealth and/or completing all of the side missions, etc.
 
Ive been playing the SP demo tonight, and its pretty damn awesome!
 
**** this.

PCgamer has gone down the tubes. Crysis is in no way as good as HL2, its just another farcry, another mediocre shooter with terrible gameplay mechanics.
 
Sedako said:
It's called a beta because it's not finished. We have yet to see a finished version of the multi-player with more maps and game modes. Even then, I enjoyed the beta even with it's glitches.
Click to expand...

You know, this isn't a personal attack at you, but I've never in my history of PC gaming and beta-ing games have I ever encountered a game that was shit in beta, then, as it would turn out, the final product is fantastic. A beta of a game is always a clear indication of the final product. The base gameplay, features and other major aspects will always be the same through development with little tweaks here and there. I really can only think of a few game developers that have gone back to re-do a major portion of the game during beta: Funcom with Age of Conan.
 
What some people fail to understand, I think, is that the graphics are tied into the gameplay. For example: There's a reason for all that extra, thick vegetation.

By the way, it's possible to enable Very High details in the game, but it takes quite a few FPS off.

Just like r_usePOM 1.
 
Alien AI? Are they taking that route again, where the game is good until the ****ing monsters show up?
 
I won't make a judgement till I've played this game from beginning to end on the hardest difficulty. And some multiplayer.
 
After Halo 3 I was pretty much expecting the same sort of reviewing for Crysis regardless of its actual gameplay quality...

I don't really like PCGamer(US) anymore, but them tying it with Half Life 2 is just a wee bit insulting.

(Crysis)
Alien AI not as spectacular as North Korean AI; enemies can sometimes absorb too much damage; a few minor glitches.

vs

(Half-Life 2)
Squadmates sometimes get in your way; low-res textures in huge outdoor scenes.

meh.
 
Hmm... well at the very least this probably means it's not going to suck outright, regardless of whether it deserves that score or not.

I can't help but disagree with everyone equating this to "graphics > story", though. Since when are they the only two factors that matter in an FPS? There are plenty of fun shooters (and just games in general) out there with mediocre stories that do fine by relying on gameplay for depth and fulfilment.
 
Bad^Hat said:
I can't help but disagree with everyone equating this to "graphics > story", though. Since when are they the only two factors that matter in an FPS? There are plenty of fun shooters (and just games in general) out there with mediocre stories that do fine by relying on gameplay for depth and fulfilment.
Click to expand...

I'm quoting just because you said it so well.

The AI in Crysis really is not as bad as people are making it out to be. It does have it moments, but I just love how it reacts to the situation. They call for backup if you fail to kill them quickly, they run away if they're injured... one of my favorites is when an enemy sees you stealth, they won't just forget about you, they'll either shoot in your general direction or keep scanning to find you.

We're still a few weeks from release regardless. A lot of the things people are having issues with can be patched.
 
From every encounter I played in the demo, if you're more than say...30 yards from the enemy firing on them, they are completely moronic.

The 2nd and 3rd enemy for example - started to patrol towards me on the beach as I was on the rocks the 1st enemy was on. I fire on them silenced, hitting one guy 4-5 times in the back. He and his teammate keep their backs to me and start walking backwards towards me and into the water. After more than a clip of silenced rounds into their backs they finally were dead.

The same thing happened when I was on a ridge engaging the little enemy roadblock (one guy in the jeep gunner seat and a bunch of others amongst rocks). They'd keep wandering around aimlessly, looking only at where my bullets were landing, keeping their backs to me and ignoring the seemingly rubber bullets that were bouncing off their backs.

The AI CAN be decent if you're up close, they actually try to maneuver on you a bit, but nothing new. There still have been numerous times up close where I just trot along next to an enemy while he ignores me running to the battle in full view.

I don't like what they do when you go cloaked, they just shoot at where you were and only detect you if you walk like 1-2 feet from them. I wish they'd track the sound you make or at least the motion in general you create and be mildly accurate.

And about the reinforcements thing, I get the feeling that it'll be another Far Cry. The moment they detect enemy contact it'll be 'OMG CALL IN THE CHOPPER' I've noticed already the moment they see a dead comrade they run a short distance, aim up into the air for about 5 seconds before firing a flare giving you ample time to drop them if you take off your silencer or get in close.

The fact that silenced bullets are made of rubber unless you get a headshot at even medium range pisses me off - I wanted a tactical experience if anything from this game.

The AI and overall gameplay mechanics would need major revamping for me to want to buy this one regardless of reviews.

And wtf, 98%? I don't think there has been a game that has come out in the last 5+ years that deserves a score that high. All these reviewers are cheapening what should be an endless pursuit of perfection with all these ridiculous scores (not just with Crysis).

EDIT: Oh yeah, and the editor...is exactly like Far Cry's editor. It even has an identical interface. It's just the same thing translated into the new engine and people are treating it like it's the tool of god.
 
The visuals of the game are superb and currently there's no other game that can compete with that.That said,that is all the game really has to offer.
A new graphics engine.
I've played the sp demo and mp beta.
Let's be honest here the game play is mediocre.From what i have seen so far the physics serve no real purpose here besides look impressive.
Cutting down tree's bit by bit is a lot fun but it's nothing more then eye candy to me.I expected the physics to play a much bigger role in the game.
The Ai does tend to take quite a few shots to be killed while you on the other hand do not.I Am just judging from what i have seen so far.
Like with Far Cry,i was really impressed with the visuals that the game has to offer but it seems to be lacking in all the other departments.
The game isn't out yet and we have yet to see the finished product of course.
I just hope that the storyline is as good as the visuals.
 
AmishSlayer said:
EDIT: Oh yeah, and the editor...is exactly like Far Cry's editor. It even has an identical interface. It's just the same thing translated into the new engine and people are treating it like it's the tool of god.
Click to expand...

It's called Sandbox 2 for a reason... Why change something that already works well? I love the editor, and it's great how you can jump right into the map you're making on the fly. It's extremely user friendly and a lot of fun to mess around with.
 
Sedako said:
It's called Sandbox 2 for a reason... Why change something that already works well? I love the editor, and it's great how you can jump right into the map you're making on the fly. It's extremely user friendly and a lot of fun to mess around with.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that Crysis hype is almost identical to Far Cry hype.

The main apparent pros and cons for each game are almost identical at this point:

Pros:
+Great graphics
+Physics
+Large landscape + draw distance
+Beautiful tropical setting + purty foliage
+Smart AI that will maneuver on you, flank, call in reinforcements
+Map editor that allows for easy creation and instant playtesting

Cons:
-AI can be retarded
-Story sucks (Crysis is shaping up to be virtually the same story - but I'll hold final judgement)
-Aliens aren't great (as PCG said - AI on aliens isn't so hot)

EDIT: SO FAR, I'd knock of major points to Crysis for gunplay, AI and the fact that the gameplay is virtually identical vs. soldiers with easier outs.
 
theotherguy said:
**** this.

PCgamer has gone down the tubes. Crysis is in no way as good as HL2, its just another farcry, another mediocre shooter with terrible gameplay mechanics.
Click to expand...

You haven't even played the full game.
 
Those f*cking assholes at PC Gamer can lick out my ass. I see my PC Gamer came today and with Crysis on the cover. I only quickly glanced at the cover before going to work and noticed that there was mention of Crysis on the included disc. So all night at work I am thinking that the Crysis demo, which I can't download, is on the disc.

So I get home from work only to find that the disc is a standard cd and all that is on it is a trailer, a stupid multi-player map and a tutorial for Crysis. Not to mention the shitty freeware games that the ******s at PC Gamer think people will actually play and enjoy. Those dousch bags always seem to disappoint with their lame demo discs.
 
I mean hell, I'm all for bagging out Crysis (for ages it just seemed like a "omg mah phat rig that I masturbate over is gonna run it fully sick" type of game) but isn't it a bit too far when you criticize a magazine for over-rating a game that you haven't played (at least fully) yet?

Besides, isn't it good that so many quality games are being released for the PC? :D
 
Since when are we trusting exclusive mag reviews? PC Gamer, moreso. Every game starts from 90 there.
Anyhow, in the same issue they gave Hellgate:London 89 so, yeah, truckloads of grain of salt.

Not that Crysis is a disaster but it's not a diamond either.
 
Zephos said:
I mean hell, I'm all for bagging out Crysis (for ages it just seemed like a "omg mah phat rig that I masturbate over is gonna run it fully sick" type of game) but isn't it a bit too far when you criticize a magazine for over-rating a game that you haven't played (at least fully) yet?

Besides, isn't it good that so many quality games are being released for the PC? :D
Click to expand...

In all fairness, its PC Gamer US. They're kind of known for overrating every hyped game.
 
Do you know which editor in particular wrote this review? I used to know the writing styles of the editors quite well when I subscribed.
 
I played the single player demo and while the graphics were pretty sweet I didn't find the demo itself amazing.
 
The last time I looked a game had to be runnable on more than five percent of the worlds computers to get a 90+ score.
 
Reginald said:
The highest score PCG UK has ever given anything is 96% I believe; HL2 among others. I think the review is in this month's edition which came out the other day so I'll pick it up tomorrow.
Click to expand...

PCGUK Crysis review is in stores 22nd November, that issue will also have the UT3 review :D
 
I knew it was gona score high but DAMN, 98!!! Wasnt it only half-life 1 which had scored that high EVER before? holy shit
 
Um.

12 hours of singleplayer?

And people are bitching about episodic content only lasting 6 hours?
 
theotherguy said:
**** this.

PCgamer has gone down the tubes. Crysis is in no way as good as HL2, its just another farcry, another mediocre shooter with terrible gameplay mechanics.
Click to expand...

Yes, because a hazardous environment suit, capable of holding at around 12 different weapons, is great gameplay mechanics
 
DEATH eVADER said:
Yes, because a hazardous environment suit, capable of holding at around 12 different weapons, is great gameplay mechanics
Click to expand...

Aye. It was good back in the day, and HL2 makes for a fitting swan song for fps that let you carry an entire arsenal on your back, but things have moved on. It's time to take that old dog out to the barn and unload both barrels into its unsuspecting head.
 
Is Edge going to review it?

Still gonna get the game though. Don`t care about the story and what not, if it`s fun, I`ll pay.
 
Without a doubt - they've been bigging Crysis up for quite a while now. Next month's issue probably. I predict a solid 8.
 
I downloaded the demo last night. Can't wait to get home and play it. Put me in the category of not giving a flying f@#k what the score is and/or who reviewed it. Put me in the category of not giving a flying f@#k how this score relates to HL2. Does this change anything, in any way shape or form, about a game that none of us has played in it's entirety yet? No.

I guess since I thought FarCry was head and shoulders better than HL2 in terms of actual gameplay my opinion doesn't matter. I thought HL2 told a good story in an amazing way. I don't think HL2 gameplay is the be all, end all of FPS gaming. It's good, but not so good in my opinion that every FPS hereafter needs to be compred to it. In fact, the HL series are the last of the easy, linear, heavily scripted FPS games I'll ever play.

Maybe I'll love Crysis, maybe I'll loathe it. At least my opinion will be my own.
 
Fishlore said:
Maybe I'll love Crysis, maybe I'll loathe it. At least my opinion will be my own.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It is nice to see a game you enjoy getting great scores, though, and I find it comforting knowing that loads of people out there are feeling the same love.
 
I have a feeling this will be one of those "Doom 3 gets a 93%" moment.
 
Fishlore said:
I guess since I thought FarCry was head and shoulders better than HL2 in terms of actual gameplay my opinion doesn't matter. I thought HL2 told a good story in an amazing way. I don't think HL2 gameplay is the be all, end all of FPS gaming. It's good, but not so good in my opinion that every FPS hereafter needs to be compred to it. In fact, the HL series are the last of the easy, linear, heavily scripted FPS games I'll ever play.
Click to expand...

Breach on brother!! I completely agree with you on this especially about HL2 not being the end all game! HL2 told a great story but in general it was a linear let down for me! FarCry was waaaay better than HL2 IMO! Crysis will not disapoint Im sure of that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top