Zero Punctuation Review of Crysis

[SirStev0]

I think he is pretty freaking hilarious... I also like that he is pretty honest about everything... if he likes it he says so and then points out problems.

I also thinks he fill the gap left by many reviewers in the gaming industry... I am fucking sick of 10/10 for games that don't deserve it... I am sick of every game made by a big company getting blown by every reviewer....

Penny arcade did a great bit about the guy who was fired after not giving a great review to that sucky ass Kane and Lynch game... The advertisers pulled money away from the site and the dude got fired... such bullshit...

 

[LintMan]

I wasn't all that blown away by Crysis' visuals, either. Not that they were bad, but they didn't quite meet the hype level, either, IMHO. (I played at 1280x1024 @ High qual settings with Vista/DX10. Anything higher and I got non-playable frame rates on my C2D E6700 / 8800GTX)

(Spoiler warning)
I thought the gameplay itself was hard but pretty enjoyable up until the spaceship. After that it went somewhat downhill, and then the bottom fell out and it hit the crapper around the time you fly the airplane thing (the hippo-bearing light aircraft in Yahtzee's terms).

Some annoyances didn't help things, either: like continuously respawning badguys (until you step in a certain spot) and the bug that made the game unprogressable when I found the hostage before entering the command center in the village.

Overall, it was a decent game, but to me wasn't the epic masterpiece some people think it was.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
I think he is pretty freaking hilarious... I also like that he is pretty honest about everything... if he likes it he says so and then points out problems.

I also thinks he fill the gap left by many reviewers in the gaming industry... I am fucking sick of 10/10 for games that don't deserve it... I am sick of every game made by a big company getting blown by every reviewer....

Penny arcade did a great bit about the guy who was fired after not giving a great review to that sucky ass Kane and Lynch game... The advertisers pulled money away from the site and the dude got fired... such bullshit...

I FUCKING KNEW IT. I always suspected that ad money played a role in biasing reviews.

 

[Fardringle]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
The people who hate Mother Teresa are the people who actually know something about her. She has great PR.

So what you are saying is that the people who hate Crysis are the people who actually want decent game play? Crysis does have great PR...

I suppose that's a decent analogy.

 

[DannyLove]

Euro Trash

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

I was really liking it up until the aliens. I would much prefer to just keep killing koreans than stupid flying freezy-things.

 

[CitizenSnips]

I just built my new rig and since Crysis is pretty much the system killer everyone needs to try I downloaded the demo and played through the brief first level. I may end up picking it up, from what I played I wasn't too wowed in terms of gameplay, but I still found it pretty fun. They didn't reinvent the FPS, just the graphics, and I'd agree with Yahtzee that if you have a rig capable of playing it you should give it a go. Sure some of the nano stuff is gimmicky but I thought it was pretty fun to sneak up behind some Korean with stealth, then switch to strength and punch the crap out of them. And to me at least, it really gave you the feel of being the nano-charged super soldier. Most FPS games make you Superman in some ways, but you really get that sense in Crysis with your nano augmentations. Of course I haven't even played beyond the demo so what do I know?

 

[CP5670]

The gameplay of Crysis looks pretty nice to me. I liked Far Cry's gameplay and nonlinearity a lot, so if it's like that, it's a good thing as far as I am concerned. However, the performance of the demo was not acceptable on my system at just about any settings I tried. I'll pick it up once I get a new card (which is whenever Nvidia releases an actual new gen card).

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it looks like a very mediocre game with pretty graphics.

Nope, you're one of about 15%. The average non-techie AT poster is blown away by this stuff. Bioshock got ravaged on this board also, and has sold millions, everyone everywhere else loves it, it's won pretty much all the critical awards and audience choice awards. If forums were any indication you'd think Ron Paul had about 60% of the vote.

I like that number you pulled out of your ass.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Sure we are. But I get a little sick of certain people around here who don't agree with your poor review of a game and automatically assume that you either suck at it, your computer sucks, or you have/had DRM issues.

For the few hours that I played I was running it at 1920x1200 with most settings on high or med. I didn't comment on performance or visuals and I can guarantee that this had nothing to do with why I feel the way I do.

Maybe I am in the minority and possibly insane but I want my $50 back. Crytek is now 2/2 in showing that they can design a beautiful engine and pack loads of technology into it, but they don't know jack shit about creating worlds, levels, mechanics, stories, or any of the other components that are necessities for creating a good video game.

I called you insane because if you are honestly unbiased, took your same criteria and applied it to any other FPS on the market, you'd have a line up of failures unable to meet your standards. Crysis is a quality shooter. You could dislike it for specific reasons, quirks that perhaps you can't get past, but that shouldn't knock it down so many pegs as to be "the worst FPS I've played in many years".

I have no problems accepting that someone might enjoy, say CoD4, over Crysis. I'd disagree with them, but I'd accept the disagreement. But when someone calls a high production value game the worst they've played, I have to question their sanity. The lowest you could rate Crysis and still be taken seriously by me would probably be an 80.

You then made your opinion look even worse by admitting you barely played it. I even beat Halo despite how much I hated it. That's commitment to the cause, ensuring I wasn't missing something truly grand at the end.

 

[swaytech]

Crysis is just a cruel joke to make kiddies upgrade their pc

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: ayabe
Sure we are. But I get a little sick of certain people around here who don't agree with your poor review of a game and automatically assume that you either suck at it, your computer sucks, or you have/had DRM issues.

For the few hours that I played I was running it at 1920x1200 with most settings on high or med. I didn't comment on performance or visuals and I can guarantee that this had nothing to do with why I feel the way I do.

Maybe I am in the minority and possibly insane but I want my $50 back. Crytek is now 2/2 in showing that they can design a beautiful engine and pack loads of technology into it, but they don't know jack shit about creating worlds, levels, mechanics, stories, or any of the other components that are necessities for creating a good video game.

I called you insane because if you are honestly unbiased, took your same criteria and applied it to any other FPS on the market, you'd have a line up of failures unable to meet your standards. Crysis is a quality shooter. You could dislike it for specific reasons, quirks that perhaps you can't get past, but that shouldn't knock it down so many pegs as to be "the worst FPS I've played in many years".

I have no problems accepting that someone might enjoy, say CoD4, over Crysis. I'd disagree with them, but I'd accept the disagreement. But when someone calls a high production value game the worst they've played, I have to question their sanity. The lowest you could rate Crysis and still be taken seriously by me would probably be an 80.

You then made your opinion look even worse by admitting you barely played it. I even beat Halo despite how much I hated it. That's commitment to the cause, ensuring I wasn't missing something truly grand at the end.

what criteria did he use? what criteria SHOULD he use?
he didn't say anything about graphics or performance. the gameplay & story is boring. i'd rather play SoF: PB again than play Crysis (which i uninstalled before I finished it because I couldn't even bring myself to play, thats how bad I dislike it). SoFB is considered by many one of the worst FPS games in recent history.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: swaytech
Crysis is just a cruel joke to make kiddies upgrade their pc

a $600 rig will let you play 1280x1024 @ medium. i fail to see how that's so horrible.
i'm running with:

E4300 @ 1.8ghz
2gigs DDRII 667
X1800XT

and it plays just fine at the above settings.

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: swaytech
Crysis is just a cruel joke to make kiddies upgrade their pc

a $600 rig will let you play 1280x1024 @ medium. i fail to see how that's so horrible.
i'm running with:

E4300 @ 1.8ghz
2gigs DDRII 667
X1800XT

and it plays just fine at the above settings.

B/c some people cant stand to play a game at anything but the highest settings. They find it personally offensive that they should be expected to upgrade if they want to see the latest and greatest.

They feel that any new game ought to be able to be played on the highest settings on any system built within the last 3 years.

 

[JBT]

If he says there is no use for strength then he obviously didn't play around very much. I probably used Strength just below cloak.

 

[Piuc2020]

Originally posted by: jdoggg12

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: swaytech
Crysis is just a cruel joke to make kiddies upgrade their pc

a $600 rig will let you play 1280x1024 @ medium. i fail to see how that's so horrible.
i'm running with:

E4300 @ 1.8ghz
2gigs DDRII 667
X1800XT

and it plays just fine at the above settings.

B/c some people cant stand to play a game at anything but the highest settings. They find it personally offensive that they should be expected to upgrade if they want to see the latest and greatest.

They feel that any new game ought to be able to be played on the highest settings on any system built within the last 3 years.

This is especially funny considering Crysis at medium with high shaders absolutely destroys anything else out there, yes including Bioshock, Unreal Tournament III, STALKER and Call of Duty 4 (at least those are the games I've played I'd say have the best graphics). Crysis in Very High is how games will look a YEAR from now, the game is just conveniently future-proof.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: JBT
If he says there is no use for strength then he obviously didn't play around very much. I probably used Strength just below cloak.

strength is surprisingly useful in MP.

the only major problem for me right now is that aircraft are way too powerful in MP. they simply dominate.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020
This is especially funny considering Crysis at medium with high shaders absolutely destroys anything else out there, yes including Bioshock, Unreal Tournament III, STALKER and Call of Duty 4 (at least those are the games I've played I'd say have the best graphics). Crysis in Very High is how games will look a YEAR from now, the game is just conveniently future-proof.

Disagree. I've seen things in Gears of War (character textures especially) and STALKER (much of the bump mapping) that is better implemented than Crysis.

That said, Crysis has absolutely the best water, no exceptions, that's been seen in a videogame to date. Whatever team was responsible for implementing that stuff needs a raise.

It's all a give and take thing. Crysis looks brilliant at times, and then some of the rocks look exactly like the rocks from Far Cry, low res textures stretched over too many polygons. STALKER looks brilliant at times, and then you notice the character models are a little shy on polygons. Gears of War looks brilliant at times, and then you realize everything's gray-brown, and some of the specular maps are a bit too...enthusiastic.

I'm not giving a single game out there best graphics, and I think it's silly to argue about technical achievements and what engine is capable of what when features can readily be added so easily to most of today's tech.

Crysis is a nice addition to the pretty-graphics stable, but it is by no means the only-ran.

 

[Piuc2020]

Yeah some games do certain specific things better than Crysis but as a whole I have yet to see a better looking game, it's downright photo-realistic at times but I guess it's also a matter of opinion.

In any case, what is indeed a fact is that Crysis runs pretty well on medium/high settings and looks good at those settings and at the very least in the league of other games so all this complaints about Crysis being a system hog... well it is on Very High but it isn't on medium/high where it still looks great.

 

[ja1484]

Agree there for sure - it's definitely tier 1 graphics.

 

[Jadow]

to me, COD 4 looks better and runs better.