Crysis Garners a 98% from PC Gamer

[Opie]

Supremely bizarre rating given they ding every other top-tier game they review for "high system requirements" and "DX10 effects that aren't worth the performance hit" in the same issue: Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance (92%) and Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts (96%).

Given that it was pretty much impossible that the reviewer played the game at Very High in DX10 (his play-through had to have occurred at least 4-6 weeks ago) I smell payola.

Thoughts?

 

[Drexion]

Its no secret that the PCGamer review and score for Crysis was already written/determined months before the game went gold.
On one hand it might appear to be a shady business practice, but on the other hand its sometimes the only way to meet deadlines and get their Christmas copies ready for print and whatnot. And practically all the influential gaming mags left do this as well with certain big titles...

I am however still impressed by that score. The high replayability and fun of the demo kinda surprised most people, who probably thought it would be all eye candy and no substance.

 

[Aix]

Didn't Doom3 get 94% from PC Gamer? That would mean Crysis is only 4% better. Personally I feel it should be at least 4.75% better.

Arbitrary scores are meaningful like that.

 

[Roufuss]

Its no secret that the PCGamer review and score for Crysis was already written/determined months before the game went gold.
On one hand it might appear to be a shady business practice, but on the other hand its sometimes the only way to meet deadlines and get their Christmas copies ready for print and whatnot. And practically all the influential gaming mags left do this as well with certain big titles...

I am however still impressed by that score. The high replayability and fun of the demo kinda surprised most people, who probably thought it would be all eye candy and no substance.

I wouldn't trust the review with any sort of credability, after their Hellgate London review which read like a giant preview... hell, even the IGN first impressions they just did on the game were more in depth then PC Gamer's 7 page review. This was made even more amusing by the fact that, by gamers own admissions, the final version of Hellgate is better than the beta and things were fixed / changed.

I don't know if this is the work of their new Editor in Chief, but I do not like the direction the magazine is going in already, reviewing games months before they even go gold to try to scoop the internet and get sales. Yet, in the same mag, they are 1-2 months late reviewing the new CoH expansion.

I will not be impressed by the score because it sounds like PC Gamer got paid AND it's an early review - isn't a 98% the highest score in the magazine's history? You mean to tell me Crysis is the best PC game ever made?

The mag is going down the shitter with this issue, and the last issue, which was the issue of the first Editor in Chief. I guess her first order of business is reviewing games before they go gold to get sales. If that's what works for them, so be it - I fell for that when they "reviewed" Hellgate London before anyone else, I won't fall for it again.

 

[zoobaby]

While the game looks really good and most likely will be, there is no way it deserves a 98%. It barely plays well (ie acceptable frame rates) on current high end systems with all the candy on.

 

[ruffz]

i don't doubt that crysis is good enough to get a 98 score, but PC gamer isn't exactly the most trustworthy source. giving hellgate london (which is a terrible game, worth maybe a 60 score tops) an 89 showed that they either made their reviews up without even playing the game or they're getting paid off for certain games' reviews.

 

[ruffz]

It barely plays well (ie acceptable frame rates) on current high end systems with all the candy on.

i wouldn't say that, i run the demo on high details, 4x AA and 1680x1050 and its very playable, smooth even. keep in mind that was only the demo, the retail version will be a lot more optimized.

 

[zoobaby]

i wouldn't say that, i run the demo on high details, 4x AA and 1680x1024 and its very playable, smooth even. keep in mind that was only the demo, the retail version will be a lot more optimized.

My rig is comparable to yours, except I only have 2 gig ram and I run XP not Vista. I had to turn off some candy and still had a few slow spots on the SP demo.

/shrug

 

[phide]

The high replayability and fun of the demo kinda surprised most people, who probably thought it would be all eye candy and no substance.

Wait, the demo was fun? We're talking about the Crysis demo, right?

...keep in mind that was only the demo, the retail version will be a lot more optimized.

The retail version will also be blessed by the Almighty and will cure what ails you, so I've heard. Sort of like Jesus, but with much better water shaders.

It seems as if PC Gamer essentially hands out 90%+ scores to any AAA title that graces their offices, so this isn't really that surprising.

 

[zamardii]

While the game looks really good and most likely will be, there is no way it deserves a 98%. It barely plays well (ie acceptable frame rates) on current high end systems with all the candy on.

It's not supposed to be able to be playable on today's high end machines. The gameplay itself, and look of the game even at just high settings is great and very playable.

 

[zoobaby]

It's not supposed to be able to be playable on today's high end machines. The gameplay itself, and look of the game even at just high settings is great and very playable.

I know they did it intentionally, but that is my point.

 

[Eagle156]

Didn't Doom3 get 94% from PC Gamer? That would mean Crysis is only 4% better. Personally I feel it should be at least 4.75% better.

Arbitrary scores are meaningful like that.

Gary Whitta commented on that, he said that saying HL2 is only 4% better than Doom3 is like saying that taking a great shit is only 4% worse than a night with some hot chick.

 

[Skirrow]

Gary Whitta commented on that, he said that saying HL2 is only 4% better than Doom3 is like saying that taking a great shit is only 4% worse than a night with some hot chick.

True but thats only 2% worse than taking a great shit ON a hot chick.

 

[Sixthsense]

Just like Farcry, this game will expeditiously be blotted out by the shear number of games impending this year. I detect the pc multiplayer community will be inadequate due to the hardware requirements. Unfortunately, Crysis is nothing more then a SP game with stunning graphics, for the few that will run at it's full potential.

 

[toyota582]

i wouldn't say that, i run the demo on high details, 4x AA and 1680x1050 and its very playable, smooth even. keep in mind that was only the demo, the retail version will be a lot more optimized.

I guess you have some kind of magic setup there cause 22fps is not what I would call smooth. http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=470&type=expert&pid=2

My rig is comparable to yours, except I only have 2 gig ram and I run XP not Vista. I had to turn off some candy and still had a few slow spots on the SP demo.

/shrug

thats because ruffz is exaggerating a bit.

 

[markt435]

i had fun with the demo, but its not 98% worthy.

 

[infect0]

PC Gamer lost its credibility years ago. I stopped getting the mag probably 5 years ago.

I would hate to see Crysis go the way of Farcry. When I say the outdoors in Farcry all I could think of is wow MP games need to take advantage of this...never happened.

 

[ruffz]

I guess you have some kind of magic setup there cause 22fps is not what I would call smooth. http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=470&type=expert&pid=2



thats because ruffz is exaggerating a bit.

just because they got 22fps average on some timedemo doesn't mean that's what i get. i actually have no idea what my average fps is because i don't run fraps or anything of the sort, but my average might be somewhat similar. there is some slowdown in the heavier combat parts of the demo, but otherwise its what i would call "smooth", meaning there's no mouse lag or hiccups while i'm looking around. the fps drop is never significant enough to give me problems. its foolish to think that the retail version won't be better optimized for fps so it'll only get better from here.

 

[PoweredBySoy]

Didn't Doom3 get 94% from PC Gamer? That would mean Crysis is only 4% better. Personally I feel it should be at least 4.75% better.

Arbitrary scores are meaningful like that.

Agreed.

5-star rating system, please.

 

[Techx]

I'd trust a shacknews game review before any printed publication who may or may not be in bed with publishers/advertisers, i've long stop subscribing to pc gamer, the whole "vede" thing and the purposeful immaturity exhibited by that guy is close to obnoxious..

 

[robbiekhan]

Supremely bizarre rating given they ding every other top-tier game they review for "high system requirements" and "DX10 effects that aren't worth the performance hit" in the same issue: Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance (92%) and Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts (96%).

Given that it was pretty much impossible that the reviewer played the game at Very High in DX10 (his play-through had to have occurred at least 4-6 weeks ago) I smell payola.

Thoughts?

There's nothing to doubt PCG played it on very high - I base this fact on the evidence provided by GameSpot's show "on the spot" this week which previewed Crysis and they showed it being played on their C2D system with 2gb ram and an 8800GT 512MB card. I saw no fps loss like the sp demo has and noticed better graphics quality even on the streaming video at Gamespot.

The conclusion is that the sp demo, like the mp demo, is also another older version of the CryEngine most likely rushed out by EA just to shut people up about a demo hence why EA or Crytek have mentioned nothing about "demo" performance yet.

It's not supposed to be able to be playable on today's high end machines. The gameplay itself, and look of the game even at just high settings is great and very playable.

Yes it is, if you read some of the dev interviews he clearly states that whilst today's top hardware (8800GT and up) can play it on very high in dx10 there are going to be features and settings not available at this time due to hardware not being available for those features - I'm thinking dx10.1 and beyond.

 

[Opie]

There's nothing to doubt PCG played it on very high - I base this fact on the evidence provided by GameSpot's show "on the spot" this week which previewed Crysis and they showed it being played on their C2D system with 2gb ram and an 8800GT 512MB card. I saw no fps loss like the sp demo has and noticed better graphics quality even on the streaming video at Gamespot.

The conclusion is that the sp demo, like the mp demo, is also another older version of the CryEngine most likely rushed out by EA just to shut people up about a demo hence why EA or Crytek have mentioned nothing about "demo" performance yet.

Dude, that makes no sense at all. An "older engine" for the demo?! Demos are for putting your best foot forward, not putting it in one's mouth. If what you say is true it would be the single biggest performance gain from demo to retail in the history of everything....a marketing masterstroke: bad demo performance intended as a consumer fake out?!

Yes it is, if you read some of the dev interviews he clearly states that whilst today's top hardware (8800GT and up) can play it on very high in dx10

They also said it would be CPU bound which is nowhere near the truth.

 

[robbiekhan]

Dude, that makes no sense at all. An "older engine" for the demo?! Demos are for putting your best foot forward, not putting it in one's mouth. If what you say is true it would be the single biggest performance gain from demo to retail in the history of everything....a marketing masterstroke: bad demo performance intended as a consumer fake out?!



They also said it would be CPU bound which is nowhere near the truth.

In the DEMO....

And yeah there is little point in releasing a demo that isn't the final product but this is EA here who have done this type of thing before with little thought and Crytek just have to listen.

The Gamespot video is solid proof of this. Watch it, and see.

 

[blindexodus]

Didn't Doom3 get 94% from PC Gamer? That would mean Crysis is only 4% better. Personally I feel it should be at least 4.75% better.

Arbitrary scores are meaningful like that.

I'll never understand why people compare reviews like that. Doom 3 came out in a different generation and was rated based on the quality of hardware and software at that time. Not to mention it's a completely different type of FPS.

 

[blindexodus]

There's nothing to doubt PCG played it on very high - I base this fact on the evidence provided by GameSpot's show "on the spot" this week which previewed Crysis and they showed it being played on their C2D system with 2gb ram and an 8800GT 512MB card. I saw no fps loss like the sp demo has and noticed better graphics quality even on the streaming video at Gamespot.

The conclusion is that the sp demo, like the mp demo, is also another older version of the CryEngine most likely rushed out by EA just to shut people up about a demo hence why EA or Crytek have mentioned nothing about "demo" performance yet.




Yes it is, if you read some of the dev interviews he clearly states that whilst today's top hardware (8800GT and up) can play it on very high in dx10 there are going to be features and settings not available at this time due to hardware not being available for those features - I'm thinking dx10.1 and beyond.

I was watching that as well. Weren't they playing the demo level though? Demo or not, we still don't know their exact game settings, and even if it did look like everything was on Very High, we still don't know the resolution. They could have had everything on Very High at 800x600 and we wouldn't really be able to tell the difference over the stream.

I'm not disagreeing with you though. There are lots of demos (especially on consoles) that are far different than the full versions.

 

[MrWizard6600]

I like X-plays /5 review system, as its very general.

1 - its a horribly broken game.
2 - something is seriously flawed but it has some form of minimal saving grace.
3 - a decent game with some quality elements to it, will appeal to some and not others
4 - a very good game with few deficiencies, and engaging.
5 - an absolutely superb game that everyone who touched it loved (very few 5's given out on X-play, Bioshock and Halo3 being the only ones given out in the past few months, WIC got a 4 )

these different sites that review games on a 100 pt scale try to be too specific. "its a 9.6". That implys that its better then the "9.4" given to some game in a completly different genre reviewed by (a) person(s) who might not have reviewed the 9.6 game. With a low point scale you don't get to make such assumptions and it simply tells you the base of the game. To the general audience (ex a gamer who's played an RTS and a couple FPS's and some RPGs) a 4 from an RPG will be enjoyed more then a 3 from an FPS even if the gamer in question perfers FPS's.

this doesn't even include the fact that game reviewing is flawed since to properly review a game you need fresh eyes each time (I mean after you've reviewed 600 games you have to have a different mind set from when you first started out).

what I like to do is rate the game out of 5/ then seperatly out of 10 and then out of some weird number such as 37. Makes you realize you have different associations with different numbers even if mathmatically they're the same. (ex a 6/10 is the same as a 3/5 or a 22/37 )

lol, [/tangent]. Sorry it got me goin...

Anyways does anyone know of any game review sites that are known to be as slanted as say toms? Is gamespot, my favorite site, one such site?

 

[robbiekhan]

I was watching that as well. Weren't they playing the demo level though? Demo or not, we still don't know their exact game settings, and even if it did look like everything was on Very High, we still don't know the resolution. They could have had everything on Very High at 800x600 and we wouldn't really be able to tell the difference over the stream.

I'm not disagreeing with you though. There are lots of demos (especially on consoles) that are far different than the full versions.

No they wree playing the full game as the set pieces they played were not in the demo unless you've played a demo that no-one else has !

He said they were playing it on either high or very high he was not sure as someone else started the game up before him but he did say the hardware used and they showed it too. It ran flawlessly, not a single hitch apart from one minor stutter which could be attributed to the 2gb ram they had really.

I acknowledge that they could not tell us more due to the game not being released yet and therefore under some type of NDA though but I seriously doubt the res was low, they had a huge LCD screen and he mentioned that it looks simply awesome on the "huge display" - I seriously doubt they were using anything less than native res and it certainly looked that way and also you can tell even on a small video when a game is run in low resolution if you've played the game before, it has a certain chunky look to it, their video had none of that.

 

[NowhereMan]

PC Gamer are known to be hype-whores. They are also known to be very generous every time they get an "exclusive review".

However, judging by the demo (which I can't have enough of), this game is a definite winner.

 

[JaYp146]

PC Gamer are known to be hype-whores. They are also known to be very generous every time they get an "exclusive review".

However, judging by the demo (which I can't have enough of), this game is a definite winner.

qft. I remember them giving Far Cry an exceptional review, as well - something in the neighborhood of 95%, back when PCG was more of a "critical" publication.

 

[GregP24]

PC Gamer lost its credibility years ago. I stopped getting the mag probably 5 years ago.

The only game mag I ever thought was worth a crap was PCXL. R.I.P PCXL, you are missed. I only read game mags now becuase I need something to do while taking a poop.