Support NeoGAF

jarosh · Oct 28, 2007

crysis

graphics: 95%
sound: 93%
controls: 93%
multiplayer: 85%

single player: 92 %

this is how they reach that score:
100%
- 4% for occasional problems with the a.i.
- 2% because some levels are too monotonous
- 2% because of the steep learning curve
= 92%

pros and cons:
+ incredible graphics
+ unbelievably exciting/thrilling
+ a lot of variation
- some issues with the a.i.

there's also:

quake wars
single player: 68%
multi player: 87%

hellgate: london
single player: 81 %

Xdrive05 · Oct 28, 2007

Well that's fantastic. I'll pick it up eventually. Hafta buy mah Marios fo now.

VicViper · Oct 28, 2007

jarosh said:
this is how they reach that score:
100%
- 4% for occasional problems with the a.i.
- 2% because some levels are too monotonous
- 2% because of the steep learning curve
= 92%

That has to be the most retarded rating system ever.

ghst · Oct 28, 2007

+ 20% for the Crytek supplied 2x8800 Ultra setup to play it on.

jarosh · Oct 28, 2007

VicViper said:
That has to be the most retarded rating system ever.

tell me about it

Stitch · Oct 28, 2007

Also from PC Action:

BioShock (PC) (92%)
Stranglehold (PC) (91%)

edit:

Two Worlds (PC) 85% :lol

jarosh · Oct 28, 2007

Stitch said:
Also from PC Action:

BioShock (PC) (92%)
Stranglehold (PC) (91%)

they have a stranglehold "re-review" for the multiplayer in this issue which they score at 78%

Tieno · Oct 28, 2007

lol @ subtracting rating system.

Wonder why they don't put the high specs as a con.

Fallout-NL · Oct 28, 2007

ghst said:
+ 20% for the Crytek supplied 2x8800 Ultra setup to play it on.

Indeed.

Kyosuke · Oct 28, 2007

PC Action doesn't take itself very seriously and neither should you.

Creamium · Oct 28, 2007

Awesome rating system. I wonder how they handle mediocre or just bad games.

100%
- 60%: the game pretty much sucks
= 40%

thesoapster · Oct 28, 2007

ghst said:
+ 20% for the Crytek supplied 2x8800 Ultra setup to play it on.

...the game is killer on the computer, but it's not that bad. It's not going to run good on some two year old setup like the source engine...in case you haven't noticed, the game looks amazing. If you thought they had designed some magical new graphics solution to make it run smooth on full detail on old hardware, you were wrong.

Yoboman · Oct 28, 2007

So the presumption is that every game is flawless, and they subtract ~2% for any flaw?:lol

ghst · Oct 28, 2007

thesoapster said:
...the game is killer on the computer, but it's not that bad. It's not going to run good on some two year old setup like the source engine...in case you haven't noticed, the game looks amazing. If you thought they had designed some magical new graphics solution to make it run smooth on full detail on old hardware, you were wrong.

The game doesn't stick at 30+ fps on high (not maximum) settings on systems that get a solid 90fps on every other latest release around. We're talking modern high end hardware, not 7xxx's and Pentium IV's.

It doesn't look that good.

And i'm sure that if they designed a game to run well on a NASA supercomputer with it would look the balls, that doesn't mean it should review well.

Kaizen · Oct 28, 2007

Kyosuke said:
PC Action doesn't take itself very seriously and neither should you.

yeah and that's why I love PC Action. :lol
sometimes they are so awesome...

thesoapster · Oct 28, 2007

ghst said:
The game doesn't stick at 30+ fps on high (not maximum) settings on systems that get a solid 90fps on every other latest release around. We're talking modern high end hardware, not 7xxx's and Pentium IV's.

It doesn't look that good.

And i'm sure that if they designed a game to run well on a NASA supercomputer with it would look the balls, that doesn't mean it should review well.

It does look that good. The game does not compromise its level of detail. What game do you get 90 fps+ in that looks anywhere near as good as Crysis? The only games I can think of are like FEAR (not graphically impressive anymore) and Source engine games (which were graphically impressive...in 2004).

WHOAguitarninja · Oct 28, 2007

ghst said:
The game doesn't stick at 30+ fps on high (not maximum) settings on systems that get a solid 90fps on every other latest release around. We're talking modern high end hardware, not 7xxx's and Pentium IV's.

It doesn't look that good.

And i'm sure that if they designed a game to run well on a NASA supercomputer with it would look the balls, that doesn't mean it should review well.

Most every recent shooter hsa been a fairly constricted corridoor affair. You can't really compare them performance wise. It's going to be more demanding. One thing you learn quickly if you spend alot of time with PC games is that minor steps up in graphics can bring about large steps up in requirements. It's just the nature of the way things are (diminishing returns and all that). This game looks SIGNIFICANTLY better than anything else out there, AND does it on a larger scale than the vast majority of other games. The performance is GOING to be demanding.

For what it's worth, the game looks better on Medium with a few high settings than most recent games do maxed out. It actually runs okay on medium if you have a system that was powerful a year and a half ago, too. I get 30fps at 720p or about 20-30 with a few dips to the teens at 1680x1050. Given what the game is doing, that's alot better than I expected, and it looks pretty damn impressive at those settings.

thesoapster · Oct 28, 2007

WHOAguitarninja said:
Most every recent shooter hsa been a fairly constricted corridoor affair. You can't really compare them performance wise. It's going to be more demanding. One thing you learn quickly if you spend alot of time with PC games is that minor steps up in graphics can bring about large steps up in requirements. It's just the nature of the way things are (diminishing returns and all that). This game looks SIGNIFICANTLY better than anything else out there, AND does it on a larger scale than the vast majority of other games. The performance is GOING to be demanding.

For what it's worth, the game looks better on Medium with a few high settings than most recent games do maxed out. It actually runs okay on medium if you have a system that was powerful a year and a half ago, too. I get 30fps at 720p or about 20-30 with a few dips to the teens at 1680x1050. Given what the game is doing, that's alot better than I expected, and it looks pretty damn impressive at those settings.

Yup. The performance gap between 'high' and 'very high' for me was the difference between averaging high 20's or low 30's fps versus being able to see single frames.

McBacon · Oct 28, 2007

Is this the new Gears of War; madly overrated, because of graphics?

I hope not.

bigmit3737 · Oct 28, 2007

Game has gone gold? Did they say this was a final build?
I was assuming there might be a delay because of the amount of complaints I have been hearing with regards to optimization.

WHOAguitarninja · Oct 28, 2007

McBacon said:
Is this the new Gears of War; madly overrated, because of graphics?

I hope not.

Gears was fun. Maybe a tad overrated, but it was definitely an extremely solid game and is still one of the best games on the system.

Judging by the demo (which I'm playing at Medium detail), Crysis really is something special. It's incredibly engrossing from the initial parachute in until the last scene.

Support NeoGAF

first (?) crysis review from german 'pc action'

Member

Member

Member

thanks for the laugh

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

shut uuuuuuuuuuuuuuup

Member

Member

thanks for the laugh

Member

Member

Member

Member

SHOOTY McRAD DICK

Member

Member

Similar threads