Crysis Review

G

|G|rinder

n00b
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
15
IGN: http://pc.ign.com/articles/834/834614p1.html

We'll all know for ourselves tomorrow, but seems like the game indeed offers all I personally thought it would, considering I played the demo itself more than some full-length games due to all the aspects of graphics, gameplay, etc. and all it offers.

Definitely seems like it's going to be quite the experience.
 
"The multiplayer, while probably not enough to draw players away from their favorites, is also worth the time."

would take a lot to draw me away from COD4 right now... my current "favorite".
 
combustion said:
"The multiplayer, while probably not enough to draw players away from their favorites, is also worth the time."

would take a lot to draw me away from COD4 right now... my current "favorite".
Click to expand...

If you're referring strictly to the MP between both, I'm sure that'd be the case, but the single-player is where it's at with Crysis and it's main focus, which Crytek has pulled-off phenomenally.

Even just from the demos alone, I wasn't impressed with CoD4, and it doesn't even come close to holding a candle to Crysis in terms of graphics, physics or gameplay mechanics. Just "my own personal", but I know there are more than a few who agree. Hard to deny, really, if you've played both games and compare those aspects of each game to one another.

Either way, it's going to be one hell of experience.
 
|G|rinder said:
If you're referring strictly to the MP between both, I'm sure that'd be the case, but the single-player is where it's at with Crysis and it's main focus, which Crytek has pulled-off phenomenally.

Even just from the demos alone, I wasn't impressed with CoD4, and it doesn't even come close to holding a candle to Crysis in terms of graphics, physics or gameplay mechanics. Just "my own personal", but I know there are more than a few who agree. Hard to deny, really, if you've played both games and compare those aspects of each game to one another.

Either way, it's going to be one hell of experience.
Click to expand...

The COD4 demo doesnt hold a candle to the actual game... you really should try it before you compare the two... as I will once I get a copy of Crysis.

ps. anyone else notice how bad the vids looked on ign? there was some crazy artifacting/flickering going on or something.
 
I haven't figured out with my "early" release if its a problem with what I have or something with my hardware, but nothing else seems to do it but Crysis will lock up solid on me and I have to reboot.

But either way it hasn't impressed me much at all and I find 90% of the time I'm don't use the suit and once you get the sniper scope with 2x zoom the game becomes a bit easier to pick off enemies from afar.
 
Very impressed with this review, looks to be an excellent game.
Too bad I'm not getting it tomorrow... I have to wait to the 23rd - New Zealand Release date D=

Meh just all the more time to play Gears.
 
firebane said:
I haven't figured out with my "early" release if its a problem with what I have or something with my hardware, but nothing else seems to do it but Crysis will lock up solid on me and I have to reboot.

But either way it hasn't impressed me much at all and I find 90% of the time I'm don't use the suit and once you get the sniper scope with 2x zoom the game becomes a bit easier to pick off enemies from afar.
Click to expand...

You haven't played it on Delta then. You literally cannot get through delta setting without using your suit.

Why don't you actually buy the game instead of Pirating it, maybe it'll work better. Who knows what your crack did to the stability of the game.
 
I've not benchmarked yet but has anyone else noticed the full game of Crysis runs better than the demo? I'm running 1280x800 with all settings very high except for shadows and post processing which are both set to high, and it seems very playable...the demo certainly wans't, I was on mostly high settings at the same res.
 
I have the full version and it runs the same as the demo. You can forget Vista + DX10, the game runs like ass. Even if you choose dx9 mode with -dx9 command you still have worst performance than using XP.
Unless nvidia or microsoft release some sort of driver or patch to improve performance I recommend using XP for this game, it's much smoother.

I'm running this game on XP with a res of 1680x1050 noAA, all settings high, using 169.04 driver, on a 8800GTX (612core, 1458shader, 2000mem) and a Q6600@3000, and my fps rarely dip below 30, and feels very smooth.
 
Im actually getting better performance in Vista using DX10 then DX9. A good 10% higher framerate.
 
I am waiting for teh hardOCP review.
they actually give you reviews to show you detail difference, setting effects and teh dx9/dx10 and vista/xp difference. not just Ohh the game was fun and we get to shoot alot of stuff.
 
sl3000gt94 said:
I am waiting for teh hardOCP review.
they actually give you reviews to show you detail difference, setting effects and teh dx9/dx10 and vista/xp difference. not just Ohh the game was fun and we get to shoot alot of stuff.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and more importantly, the use of different hardware and SLI/Crossfire. I for one am waiting for H so I can decide what to upgrade to and whether SLI can achieve the results I want.
 
LOL, I liked their "The Bad " section:

- The single-player story ends
- Will laugh at every CPU and GPU thrown at it

Good ones :)
 
Beat the game yesterday and and the only reason I took the time to finish it was because I paid for it. Of the recent FPS games I have played recently (Halo-Orange Box-CoD4-Bioshock) Crysis is easily the weakest. All the reviews are blowing sunshine everywhere about the games good points, so I’ll just stick to my main complaints about the game.

The vehicle sections in the game are just horrible. The jeep feels like a death trap, I was cursing along with 25% damage and it exploded when a scraped a tree. I got my tank stuck on a rock, a tree, some bush and another tank; that was me just trying to play the level. Also the tank is pretty much nothing more than a gigantic bullzeye for the missile dudes, I actually ended up getting out of the tank and beating the area on foot. The VTOL speed is inconsistent, I failed a couple secondary objectives later in the game before I even got to the area because the VTOL was going People Mover speed with the afterburner on.

Lack of autosave makes me sad. You can go for 30-45 minutes without getting a checkpoint and all it takes one fuck up and if you didn’t remember to hit F5 you get to play the entire area again. Kinda dumb thing to bitch about, and if it was 1998 I wouldn’t, but every game in recent memory has a decent enough autosave system so hitting F5 just isn’t something I think about.

The last 1/4 of the game is a gigantic scripted event. No I am not kidding, it is boring as shit and there is nothing you can do about it.

IGN said:
the Halo 2 type of ending
Click to expand...
Seriously.

I could probably go on about weapon balance, AI buggyness and the shitty story but I can overlook stuff like. Like I said, of the AAA FPS games we have seen recently, I feel Crysis is by far the weakest. It is really pretty though.
 
I indeed wait for [H] review too, wondering what performance is like + setting comparisons, GO KYLE!!!11!!
Gamespot review is pretty funny. For the demo, I could run everything on high + shadows and post processing on medium to get FPS in high 30's @ 1680x1050, felt laggy :(
 
aFive said:
I indeed wait for [H] review too, wondering what performance is like + setting comparisons, GO KYLE!!!11!!
Gamespot review is pretty funny. For the demo, I could run everything on high + shadows and post processing on medium to get FPS in high 30's @ 1680x1050, felt laggy :(
Click to expand...

Are you running vista or xp, dx9 or dx10?
 
hmmm..I was gonna go with Vista 64 on my new PC build. I know everyone has been taking a performance hit with the Vista 32bit. Does the 64bit act the same. Or is it better then the 32bit version.
If i run it in dx9 in vista on very high...Will it run better then
 
These are the same guys that made Farcry after all - one of the more overrated games in PC history.

I'll buy Crysis, and it'll be good. But I'm not expecting an experience that will top Ep2 or Bioshock.
 
Really, you're seriously the first guy I've seen that think Far Cry is overrated.
 
The AI was f'ing horrible. I couldn't play 15 minutes without a badguy getting stuck on a tree or falling into a 2 foot hole and just stare at me. And then on the flip side of the coin, the same AI could also pinpoint me crawling through bushes 100 feet away at night... "Hey.. what was that!?".

The gameplay suffered.

It did have it's moments though.
 
I think Far Cry was good, not unbelievable, but this game is clearly is backing up all its hype at least.
 
Far Cry was the first shooter that was open ended in the way you could go about making your way through a level and it was refreshing. It was nice not having a strict path to get from A to B like so many other shooters (Doom 3, CoD2, HL2, FEAR, etc)

Also keep in mind the game came out of no where from a no name developer. The graphics couldn't be beat at the time and it definitely stole some thunder from Doom 3 and HL2.
 
Dutch said:
Far Cry was the first shooter that was open ended in the way you could go about making your way through a level and it was refreshing. It was nice not having a strict path to get from A to B like so many other shooters (Doom 3, CoD2, HL2, FEAR, etc)

Also keep in mind the game came out of no where from a no name developer. The graphics couldn't be beat at the time and it definitely stole some thunder from Doom 3 and HL2.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I wanted to say.
 
Dutch said:
Far Cry was the first shooter that was open ended in the way you could go about making your way through a level and it was refreshing. It was nice not having a strict path to get from A to B like so many other shooters (Doom 3, CoD2, HL2, FEAR, etc)

Also keep in mind the game came out of no where from a no name developer. The graphics couldn't be beat at the time and it definitely stole some thunder from Doom 3 and HL2.
Click to expand...

And THAT is why Crysis > COD4. I'm tired of games like COD4. Granted, it's very good, but it's still linear. I've played the Crysis demo 10+ times and it never gets old. Always something different.
 
Frosteh said:
I've not benchmarked yet but has anyone else noticed the full game of Crysis runs better than the demo? I'm running 1280x800 with all settings very high except for shadows and post processing which are both set to high, and it seems very playable...the demo certainly wans't, I was on mostly high settings at the same res.
Click to expand...

Same here. I'm on 1920x1080 and it runs about 20% smoother on medium settings. No more hiccups or slowdowns at all. Forcing vsync in the Nvidia drivers actually works perfectly now, too. No more screen tearing at all.
I guess the demo didn't support multi-core, but the full game does. That might be the reason. Either that or they just optimized it a little more in the last month.

As for Far Cry, Dutch nailed it. It came out of nowhere and was arguably the best shooter of it's generation even though it went to market first. Nobody ever thought to have a totally open shooter before. There are about 100 ways to approach every level. You can even take the time to swim around and sneak through some levels only firing a few shots if you want.
 
zamardii said:
And THAT is why Crysis > COD4. I'm tired of games like COD4. Granted, it's very good, but it's still linear. I've played the Crysis demo 10+ times and it never gets old. Always something different.
Click to expand...

That it is. COD4 is a fun multiplaer game, but nothing more. For some of us fans that have been playiong since COD1, the sounds have pretty much remained the same as cod2, which is kind of sad. Game is very linear and does not bring anything new to the table. Graphics are great for what the game is, so is the game play. Far Cry was a stunning game for most of the time, hopefully Crysis is too.
 
Monkey God said:
then im the second.
Click to expand...
That'll make me the third. I liked the intro level, but the damage enemies take is just obscene. Once I got to the Trigen bits, I simply couldn't tolerate it any longer -- expending clip after clip into boring-looking, cookie-cutter 'monsters'. Crysis feels surprisingly similar, so I doubt I'll be picking it up. I thought the demo, while gorgeous, had essentially nothing going for it in terms of gameplay. For me, it was the first level of Far Cry, except moving in a different direction and shooting slightly different-looking enemies.

Open-endedness and great graphics are no savior for boring, monotonous gameplay. I love mindless shooting, but when the shooting isn't actually satisfying, you can count me out.
 
Monkey God said:
then im the second.

it was pretty, but otherwise bland gameplay.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess you just prefer a path in front of you with a flag at the end of it saying, "this is your objective." I don't get it... I could replay that game many times, and the outcome of each battle could be different. Or, I could think of a different way to get to the next objective.
 
phide said:
That'll make me the third. I liked the intro level, but the damage enemies take is just obscene. Once I got to the Trigen bits, I simply couldn't tolerate it any longer -- expending clip after clip into boring-looking, cookie-cutter 'monsters'. Crysis feels surprisingly similar, so I doubt I'll be picking it up. I thought the demo, while gorgeous, had essentially nothing going for it in terms of gameplay. For me, it was the first level of Far Cry, except moving in a different direction and shooting slightly different-looking enemies.

Open-endedness and great graphics are no savior for boring, monotonous gameplay. I love mindless shooting, but when the shooting isn't actually satisfying, you can count me out.
Click to expand...

What the hell kind of FPS games do you guys play? When is a FPS game not considered mindless? You don't HAVE to kill everybody in the game. That's the beauty of open ended gameplay. It's what MAKES the game not monotonous b/c you can choose your own path, and you can choose, if you have to, which person to kill. If that's mindless gameplay for a first person shooter, then maybe you're just mindless and prefer a straight path with little thinking involved.

And as far as gameplay, how satisfying is it when you grab a enemy by the neck, switch to "Maximum Strength," and throw him into every conceivable object in the area. Throw him up on top of the building so the roof falls in, or against a table and watch everything break, or into somebody else and knock them out. To me, that never gets old. I've never been able to do that in a FPS, not to mention be able to shoot while still having the person in your grip.
 
phide said:
I love mindless shooting, but when the shooting isn't actually satisfying, you can count me out.
Click to expand...

Games like Far Cry and Crysis are more than just mindless shooting and that is why some people don't care for it, because it isn't what they prefer from a FPS.

Some people prefer to run n' gun with constant, and intense action (games like UT, Quake, and CoD).

Others like a little to be able to sneak around and immerse themselves in their surroundings (games like Far Cry, and the larger levels in BF2).

There is a difference in the style of FPS just like there is with RPGs (Oblivion vs. Dungeon Siege). And when an FPS lean more to one side, not everyone will like it.

And the problem is, most people who lean toward one side can't appreciate the merits of the other and think the game sucks or was overrated.

phide said:
Open-endedness and great graphics are no savior for boring, monotonous gameplay.
Click to expand...

And to some, the open-endedness is what provides such a satisfying and fun gameplay experience.
 
zamardii said:
If that's mindless gameplay, then maybe you're just mindless.
Click to expand...
I don't like the game, which seemingly means that I should be personally insulted. Very interesting.

Honestly -- if you can't tolerate those who don't feel the same way you do about certain things, then perhaps you shouldn't be posting here. I'm not going to call you or anyone else retarded, dumb or 'mindless' for not liking a game based on totally valid reasoning, and I expect the same treatment from everyone else.

Dutch said:
And to some, the open-endedness is what provides such a satisfying and fun gameplay experience.
Click to expand...
I'll go either way, really. I don't mind riding on rails, and I don't specifically prefer open-ended gameplay. I thought there were just too many shortcomings with the rest of the game to make it a rewarding experience. Some of the dynamics actually made it difficult to approach situations in different ways, so certain approaches would sometimes appear feasible but not actually viable. I can think of quite a few titles that I think executed that type of gameplay much better overall and have had fewer shortcomings in other aspects.

I thought the concept was great, but that the execution failed on a number of counts, which is why I feel Far Cry was often grossly overrated (though not always).
 
Yeah, I'm not sure what people want from FPS's these days. Most are very linear. Even Half-Life, which seems really open is still more or less on rails. The world looks great and feels expansive...but you're still stuck going through the same paths each time. You can try different weapons, but each section of each level is still scripted.
FEAR's even worse, but has intense firefights tossed in.
Doom and Quake are as linear as they come, but Doom was dark and had enemies jumping out behind each door. Quake just had a lot of enemies to kill.
UT3 is just a bunch of multiplayer games.
Bioshock's actually too easy as a shooter, but had a fun plot. Still, everything you do is scripted and completely linear.
Even the 3PS Gears of War is still pretty limited in scope, but a ton of fun.
If Far Cry is is just more of the same, I think you're probably playing the wrong genre. It's the only shooter that dropped you in a totally open world and gave you a goal. There are probably 500 ways to get there and 50 randomly placed enemies and osctacles. You can waste 'em all like Rambo or you can play like Thief and only kill 1 or 2 if you want. Yes, there are a few "straight" shooter levels, but 75% are open. Enemies can be snipers, berserkers, beasts, rocket launchers, etc.
You also have pretty much every major type of weapon covered, too.
The only real complaint I can see with Far Cry would be some of the early bugs in the first few versions and the final level...which is so hard it makes me want to scream.
 
the game is brillient but for me its too early to judge it, so far bioshock is my fav fps for this year but crysis looks decent too. if current hardware could of played this game the way its meant to be played then this game would get game of the year for me thats for sure
 
it wasn't opened ended at all, just open-area'd which isn't the same.
I just thought it was overhyped. I guess im stupid or don't get FPS's because I think that.
the graphics though at the time were not overhyped IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top