Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Crysis Review: Enough Tests! Is It Any Good?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 28, 2007 1:51:10 PM

Review written by Travis Meacham.

Crysis is one of those rare games that amazes from the first minute it starts, but once you get past the astonishing graphics and incredible technology is there enough game left to keep you playing?

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/28/crysis_review/
November 28, 2007 2:10:54 PM

Ok crysis is a good game so far (only on level 3 so far) the different way to complete the levels are great--but i agree that this game should only be played on hard (or delta) difficulty as anything lower isnt really a challenge. On hard or above you really have to rely on the nanosuit to survive (as others have said). I played the demo on easy or whatever and I just went around on a hummer blastin caps in everyone without any challenge--so it really does feel like a different game in a harder difficulty.


QUESTION-- I spent the whole night the other night trying to sign into online games, half of them were stupid punkbuster that doesnt support 64 bit os's and the other half timed out. even official crysis servers! Anyone else having this problem??

--btw i use vista 64

cheers!
November 28, 2007 2:25:16 PM

I use Vista 64 because I thought it will be more future proof and it seems to run "OK" on Vista 64.
Anyway, I can stop worrying about the performance after the HD 3870-X2 comes out.
Agreed. Hard is better. I'll play the game on hard after I finish the first time.
About the game, I was a little dissapointed with the dialog and voice acting. The dialog wasn't as good as Oblivion and voice acting wasn't as good as 5-star Grand Theft Auto (VC and SA). It's just a game, no need for extreme nitpicking. 8.5 seems under-rated. So was GRAW-1.
Related resources
November 28, 2007 2:29:26 PM

I liked the game. I agree though that you have to go to hard or delta difficulty to make the most of the game.

About connecting through multiplayer.. I had the same problem with connecting. I looked on the crysis forums and found that if you go to the file that has your cd key and retype it in there it'll fix it. I'm not sure why this works, but I couldnt connect to any online games until I did this. Now I connect to all games.
November 28, 2007 2:30:53 PM

Geez, where to start? Can't knock the graphics, though, they're great. But I agree with everything the article covers. My biggest disappointment is the lack of a knife and/or garrote. If you can go stealth with the nanosuit, you should also be able to sneak up behind someone and seriously take them out quietly and unobtrusively. Also, if you're going on a mission like this, you'd already have some grenades! Sheesh! So yes, you can do things in Crysis you can't in others, but it's still (imho) too linear.
November 28, 2007 2:31:20 PM

I'm still playing through the game. I'm maybe on the fourth level, but the opinions in the review are the vibe I'm getting myself. I'm not enjoying it as much as Far Cry, and Call of Duty 4 is still fresh in my head. It could've been a perfect game but a few missteps have tarnished it a bit. My #1 complaint is that you can't shoot or interact with dead bodies. A mod was just released to change that but it still isn't as satisfying as it should be. Maybe after a few more versions of the mod, it will be fixed, but it's still dumb something like that wasn't included in a game since little details like bodies flying around or floating bleeding in the water were great in Far Cry, and all of the realism and interactivity in Crysis just makes no body interaction even more noticeable.

My other complaint is the rifles feel too underpowered. I'm sure I'll complain about the ending too once I get to that point, but that's a trend that has been going on for a while now. Halo 2 did it, and I thought that was a disappointing game in general, and Half-Life 2 did it. The AI seems pretty retarded too. Sometimes they do smart things, but usually I can stealthily kill entire bases of them without sounding an alarm. It's definitely a good game, but there's some missed potential.

Certain things bother me, like not being able to quickly kill a guard while in stealth, or for some reason losing all suit power when firing a gun while in stealth. What's the technical reasoning behind that?

At this point, I think Call of Duty 4 is the best FPS of the year and maybe game of the year. Bioshock might be the only competition for it. And I think Crysis is probably behind both of them.
November 28, 2007 3:19:43 PM

Maxor127 said:
At this point, I think Call of Duty 4 is the best FPS of the year and maybe game of the year. Bioshock might be the only competition for it. And I think Crysis is probably behind both of them.


I agree with Maxor. In fact, I'd say that CoD4 and BioShock are measuredly better than Crysis. Maybe it just got hyped too much, I dunno. But I have a laundry list of complaints about the game, which left me extremely disappointed.
November 28, 2007 3:21:33 PM

Yeah I agree that with call of duty 4 in the forefront of most gamer's minds it is a little easier to be nitpicky about any oither fps around, including crysis. I think that cod4 stole a lot of this games thunder-- I mean do not get me wrong, i really like crysis and would recomend it highly, its just that crysis was all i was thinking of for weeks while i was building/tweaking my rig--then cod4 came out and took me by surprise and I kind of forgot about crysis.

put it this way, i've beat cod4 single player and I am a level 31 in online, I'm on level three in the crysis singleplayer.*

Oh and thanks beef-- i'll try that fix when i get home.

* note, I work a lot so I don't get as much time to game it anymore.
November 28, 2007 4:12:39 PM

Here's my summation of Crysis:

Graphics: Phenomenal... I could play the game just for the graphics and object interaction. Second to none.

Game play: been there, done that. Not that that's a bad thing, there's just nothing overly new. Nanosuit is clever. Weapon augmentation on the fly is a nice addition.

Overall, a great game. I've had fun playing it... and in the end, that's all that really matters to me.

Never played COD4... it's on my X-mas list. :) 
November 28, 2007 5:30:19 PM

A great game, but nothing that will give it GOTY material, the multiplayer is meh, imo there's no teamwork in Power Struggle (like I care about teamwork anyway, I just win), Instant Action is fun, but nothing spectacular. More modes such as team action, CTF and more would have been great (there might be mods being developped).

You mentioned, in the review, a mode where one player is attacked by all others, UT2k4 has a mode like that, mutant, the top player gets speed and invisibility while the other players must kill him/her, and the worst player of the game gets to be the bottom feeder, able to kill anyone, but the mutant gets more points by killing the bottom feeder, it's a fun mode. I think it could easily be made into a mod (if I knew where to start.. i've only made quake 3 maps and going to dabble in source (for CS:S in particular) this weekend haha).

Like UT3, I think this game is going to haft to be saved by mods, look at Mechwarrior Living Legends for any mech fan, I think it's gonna be sweet with this cryengine.

Bioshock was the greatest sp experience i've had all year (won't comment on CoD4 as I have 0 interest to play it).
November 28, 2007 7:18:17 PM

I agree with the sentiment here and in the article.

I finished the game once already on default and replaying on hard. I am disappointed as what was meant by replayability. I guess my expectations are just too darned high. ;) 

All in all it's a good game, great graphics... but there's more fluff that seems to be missing from this highly hyped game.

I'm sure it will be used for some time to come to bench graphics cards / processor performance. IMHO it's not as good as it was hyped to be.

I haven't played COD4 or Bioshock but did play FarCry which this game is eerily similar. I think for the time that which FarCry was released it was a better game of the time.

Without playing some of these other games it's hard to say where I would put in on the list, but the game play is not as good as I expected it to be as well as replayability that was overly hyped as a big feature.

The nano suit was an interesting twist, but the AI isn't as good as FarCry was IMHO.

I give it a 7 out of 10. Mods very well could make it much better. :sol: 

November 28, 2007 7:22:54 PM

Great game, I agree with many of the comments... especially regarding stealth mode. To be able to take out characters like you do a-la-Splinter Cell would've really added to this game. With only guns available, you can't really take a true "stealth" approach to the missions.

Crysis is nothing short of amazing -- I couldn't be happier that someone had the balls to push the technological envelope as far as Crysis' developers did. BioShock is the most original FPS I've ever played, but comparing it (or COD4) to Crysis simply isn't fair. This game is on another level, and until you have the hardware that can push it, you simply can't understand how rich this game is.

It's a good time to be a gamer...
November 28, 2007 7:45:16 PM

Quote:

The multiplayer is a nice addition but the lack of mainstays like team deathmatch or capture the flag is noticeable. Since everyone on the map is outfitted with a nanosuit it practically negates all the advantages you'd get over normal soldiers. If everyone is "super", than no one is. I would have liked to see a Predator Hunt-style multiplayer where one person plays the nanosuit soldier and everyone else has to kill them. The multiplayer isn't a complete waste of time but it isn't the robust suite that other shooters are offering.


I can't take a review seriously when they criticize a lack of CTF. CTF is lame. It's overused in games ad nauseam. Very rarely, does a game implement a CTF mode that makes it original and fun, and TBH I prefer games where CTF is omitted, because we've seen it done a thousand times and it aint getting any better. To me, this criticism shows that the reviewer is not in touch with the PC gaming community and probably could be considered a 'noob'.

I agree that more online modes would be a benefit, but this game will see user-created mods which will fill this gap. There's simply no need to include a CTF mode in Crysis and I'm glad they didn't. The multiplayer gaming experience needs depth and power struggle.

oh and FYI... 'Instant action' isn't a game mode, it's just that the option for 'Instant action' is set to deathmatch by default. You can set IA to any available game mode in the client. Just another reason why I think the author doesn't really understand Crysis, or PC gaming.
November 28, 2007 8:03:37 PM

echofoxtrot said:

QUESTION-- I spent the whole night the other night trying to sign into online games, half of them were stupid punkbuster that doesnt support 64 bit os's and the other half timed out. even official crysis servers! Anyone else having this problem??

--btw i use vista 64

cheers!


Hi,
It's a problem with PB not Crysis. PB doesn't support 64 bit OS' so the only way to play Crysis MP, with the 64 bit client, is to join servers without PB enabled.

I've just got a second link for the 32 bit client for MP.

I think it's pretty disgusting that, widely used software, like PB and adobe flash, still does not have 64 bit support.
November 28, 2007 8:05:05 PM

stemnin said:
A great game, but nothing that will give it GOTY material, the multiplayer is meh, imo there's no teamwork in Power Struggle (like I care about teamwork anyway, I just win), Instant Action is fun, but nothing spectacular. More modes such as team action, CTF and more would have been great (there might be mods being developped).

You mentioned, in the review, a mode where one player is attacked by all others, UT2k4 has a mode like that, mutant, the top player gets speed and invisibility while the other players must kill him/her, and the worst player of the game gets to be the bottom feeder, able to kill anyone, but the mutant gets more points by killing the bottom feeder, it's a fun mode. I think it could easily be made into a mod (if I knew where to start.. i've only made quake 3 maps and going to dabble in source (for CS:S in particular) this weekend haha).

Like UT3, I think this game is going to haft to be saved by mods, look at Mechwarrior Living Legends for any mech fan, I think it's gonna be sweet with this cryengine.

Bioshock was the greatest sp experience i've had all year (won't comment on CoD4 as I have 0 interest to play it).


I agree with Stemnin. Mods could make a somewhat lackluster multiplayer much better, but I'm still mad that Crytek didn't offer a better experience out of the box.

Oh, and Stemnin, you should really give Call of Duty 4 a try. Might be the best game of the year in a very crowded field.
November 28, 2007 8:28:36 PM

GravityParade said:

I can't take a review seriously when they criticize a lack of CTF. CTF is lame. It's overused in games ad nauseam. Very rarely, does a game implement a CTF mode that makes it original and fun, and TBH I prefer games where CTF is omitted, because we've seen it done a thousand times and it aint getting any better. To me, this criticism shows that the reviewer is not in touch with the PC gaming community and probably could be considered a 'noob'.

I agree that more online modes would be a benefit, but this game will see user-created mods which will fill this gap. There's simply no need to include a CTF mode in Crysis and I'm glad they didn't. The multiplayer gaming experience needs depth and power struggle.

oh and FYI... 'Instant action' isn't a game mode, it's just that the option for 'Instant action' is set to deathmatch by default. You can set IA to any available game mode in the client. Just another reason why I think the author doesn't really understand Crysis, or PC gaming.


I see. You can't take a review seriously because the author wrote that he would have liked CTF in the multiplayer. You must really hate CTF, GravityParade. In fact, you must hate a lot of multiplayer games, becuase quit a few have a CTF map or mode. And quite a few people, me and others included on this thread, like CTF. You're entitled to your opinion, but calling one reviewer a "noo" because he mentions the lack of CTF is a little extreme, don't you think? After all, re-read the graph from the review that you quoted -- it's pretty innocuous. It's not like Travis slammed the multiplayer and then wrote a 500 page love letter to CTF. He mentioned it once, along with the ommission of Team Deathmatch, which are reasonable observations. For crying out loud, he used the word "noticeable." Don't you think you're overreacting, maybe, just a tad?

Oh, and not to pile it on you after your first post, but I think you're nit-picking with the whole Instant Action terminology. In fact, Crytek itself refers to it as a game mode; here's something from Crytek.

Instant Action

This game mode can be compared to classic death match in general. Due to the Nanosuit being available in multiplayer as well the player will experience a whole new variety of this mode. It is more dramatic, intense and includes a lot more action.


http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=472&Itemid=2

November 28, 2007 8:34:14 PM

I personally agree with everything stated in the article. It really hit the nail on the head and got the general community opinion out there. Although I think the 8.5 out of 10 is a bit to high, I would've given it a straight 8 or a 7.5 out of 10; because the ending was so poor, multiplayer is virtually non-existent, and he single player difficulty is not scaled (such as the Koreans only speaking Korean on Delta difficulty is just stupid, it should be available on hard or higher, if not all, after all they are Koreans...).
November 28, 2007 8:39:13 PM

I can say that after playing the demo for both Crysis and COD4 that COD 4 impressed me more. Now it didn't seem to blow me away like COD2 or HL2 Episode 2 but maybe I need to play the whole game.

Graphics terms yes Crysis has some amazing graphics but what good is that if you cannot play it on a decent resolution at high settings? I love the graphics but still get dissapointed that even a nice high end SLI system(using 8800GTX's too) cannot run it well.

In terms of story HL2 Episode 2 would blow Crysis away easily but then again Valve always does have a knack at putting together a killer story especially the way the ended Episode 2 on a cliff hanger that didn't dissapoint and left me wanting more.

The AI was pretty bleh. I mean even HL2 had AI that could compare when played on hard. Same with most good FPS.

The Physics were great and on par with HL2 and most others.

Over all its another good FPS. I mean the best graphics in some areas and some interesting concepts but they need to expand them more to help give the SP more. As for MP without a lot of modes or character classes to choose from I think it will lose out to COD4 and especially TF2(which has me addicted to sniping and every class).

I think Crysis was hyped too much. Its nice but not GOTY. Bioshock impressed me especially with the story. It surrounded you in this "past" with a sci-fi twist and fun weapons.
November 28, 2007 8:40:15 PM

GravityParade said:
oh and FYI... 'Instant action' isn't a game mode, it's just that the option for 'Instant action' is set to deathmatch by default. You can set IA to any available game mode in the client. Just another reason why I think the author doesn't really understand Crysis, or PC gaming.


This is a direct quote from the Crysis game manual page 19:

INSTANT ACTION
Jump straight into action with the US forces in a classic death-match battle for supremacy, with up to 32 players. With no spawn time and straightforward kill-or-be-killed play, Instant Action is your best choice for a pure combat fix.

Also here's a screenshot from the Crysis server list. Under "Game Mode" is listed "Power Struggle" and "Instant Action".



I'm just saying...
November 28, 2007 8:46:45 PM

He said it wasn't a Game Mode than insulted you? What an idiot... :sarcastic: 
November 28, 2007 10:18:23 PM

I thought Crysis was one of the best FPS shooters I've ever played. I enjoyed it immensely. To me this game set a new standard. In fact, I was so immersed in the game that I never really looked at it with a critical eye. Maybe I will the next time through. The only thought that came to mind was after it was all said and done...I probably enjoyed Call of Duty 4 a bit more.

Overall, I disagree with an 8.5 and would give it at least a 9.0, if not more. But then again I never really follow the hype of anything so I didn't have any expectations.

Game on.
November 28, 2007 11:37:23 PM

Nice article, but I give it a 7.0

Graphics: Nice, but I don't spend my time looking at them, I play the game. Everything is on low except a few things (like physics otherise I might as well play farc cry), and I run 1680x1050.

Sound: This was actually very good, made the game more immersive.

Gameplay: Adequate, though it wasn't exceptional.

Ending: Arcady and boring, they used a background picture just before the credits instead of a properly rendered scene?! You say a cheesy line and then it ends. Ho hom, worst ending of any game this year (and probably last).

Physics: This is where I disagree with the article.

"Everything in the world reacts the way you'd expect to the point where you stop thinking like a gamer and start thinking like a person again."

Well when I throw a grenade at a tree, I expect it to shatter, not fall for a bit, freeze in the air and then fall a bit more. I also don't expect an entire building to fall down when I throw a barrel at it. I'm not sure if the full version is affected, but in the demo, the nukes did less damage to the environment than grenades :heink: 

Also, I found that several aliens simply froze mid-air one I killed them, and a tree branch froze above my head when I threw it.

On the aircraft carrier I often fell through decks and even right through the ship to the ocean. The final level was by far the buggiest in the game, and one of the most poorly debugged maps I've seen in any game.
November 29, 2007 12:40:32 AM

robwright said:
Oh, and Stemnin, you should really give Call of Duty 4 a try. Might be the best game of the year in a very crowded field.


I tried the demo out and it was just like all the other cod's and moh's (I played most of them on consoles, moh since "show me your papers" - I think that was moh, on the PSX/1), I don't care about any of my squadmates and i'd shoot them if it meant that much more ammo, they get in my way, look at the way you gotta take care of Prophet while he freezes (in crysis), it slows down the game imo.. it wansn't a totally bad scene, but kinda annoying.

I also don't really care about old war/modern war settings, i'm more into sci fi (even though I like bf2 > 2142, bf2 is just better), and RTS's, but there hasn't been anything yet that's kept me playing more than a month (including supcom and c&c3, and for the same reasons WiC etc I probably will never play..). But there's a demo out, I might try out WiC.

I love "Lazer" beams.


PS also the koreans only speaking korean on delta is really dumb, after playing bf2 for 2 years, I never need to read what's someone just spotted, I know the difference from chopper spotted or jet spotted. (although I can't pronounce either)
November 29, 2007 12:45:44 AM

randomizer said:
Nice article, but I give it a 7.0

Graphics: Nice, but I don't spend my time looking at them, I play the game. Everything is on low except a few things (like physics otherise I might as well play farc cry), and I run 1680x1050.

Sound: This was actually very good, made the game more immersive.

Gameplay: Adequate, though it wasn't exceptional.

Ending: Arcady and boring, they used a background picture just before the credits instead of a properly rendered scene?! You say a cheesy line and then it ends. Ho hom, worst ending of any game this year (and probably last).

Physics: This is where I disagree with the article.

"Everything in the world reacts the way you'd expect to the point where you stop thinking like a gamer and start thinking like a person again."

Well when I throw a grenade at a tree, I expect it to shatter, not fall for a bit, freeze in the air and then fall a bit more. I also don't expect an entire building to fall down when I throw a barrel at it. I'm not sure if the full version is affected, but in the demo, the nukes did less damage to the environment than grenades :heink: 

Also, I found that several aliens simply froze mid-air one I killed them, and a tree branch froze above my head when I threw it.

On the aircraft carrier I often fell through decks and even right through the ship to the ocean. The final level was by far the buggiest in the game, and one of the most poorly debugged maps I've seen in any game.


Out of curiousity, did you use quick save/loads during the game? I know someone with those problems and when he quick saved/loaded that's what he figures what caused it because he stopped doing that and it never happened again.
November 29, 2007 12:52:34 AM

Yep, always quicksave, and it nearly always was quicksaves that caused it I guess. Generally there would be an explosion and down I went.

I agree too, the grenade indicator and the korean speech thing should be a separate option, not bound to difficulty level. I mean, they sound like americans when you play on hard or less.

EDIT: Did anyone else find that it would always auto-save at checkpoints at the worst possible times? Like 0.2 seconds before you blew up.
November 29, 2007 2:53:12 AM

randomizer said:
Yep, always quicksave, and it nearly always was quicksaves that caused it I guess. Generally there would be an explosion and down I went.

I agree too, the grenade indicator and the korean speech thing should be a separate option, not bound to difficulty level. I mean, they sound like americans when you play on hard or less.

EDIT: Did anyone else find that it would always auto-save at checkpoints at the worst possible times? Like 0.2 seconds before you blew up.



LOL... I came close once like crossing the bridge with the two machine gun boys on both sides... right before having to try and destroy the two tanks.

But very easy to get around just ran around the corner of one of those gun shacks and lay down... wait for cloak power and cloak up and wait some more for health to rebuild... then resave the game.

I think that's another thing that takes away the hardness factor is not having to hunt around for health kits...lol.

I never quick saved... always did it the hard way. Learned that from previous games. :sol: 

I thought the sniper rifle was a bit weak in this game. I thought the sniper rifle in farcry was much better. I may have to load that back up and see if there is a difference in them. Just seems like the scope isn't as good.

Oh and I did forget to say the ending with the jackass repeatedly telling me to take out the cannons. Like how many times do they need to repeat this? I had to shut off the volume before I ripped the speakers out!!! The ending was piss poor for me and highly responsible for my 7 rating. :pfff: 
November 29, 2007 3:01:49 AM

Don't worry it's only beta code, it isn't optimised yet! Wait for the full game. :pfff: 
November 29, 2007 9:56:50 AM

Why do they release a game with beta code? stupid EA pressure i guess...

IMO COD4 looks fantastic , and runs like a charm ...crysis doesnt look 2 times better but runs 4 times worse...go figure.

blizzard > all in every aspect , they don't take **** from Vivendi , and take their time :) 

gogo sc2.
November 29, 2007 10:50:01 AM

randomizer said:
EDIT: Did anyone else find that it would always auto-save at checkpoints at the worst possible times? Like 0.2 seconds before you blew up.


Yes, it was very annoying, like i'm using speed and then I want to switch to strength real fast before I jump over a building or rocks and bam quick save = slam into whatever. I'm glad it doesn't happen in multiplayer.

I see the difference between cod4 and crysis as the same difference between indoor and outdoor oblivion, indoor always ran great and looked great way better than outdoor (where I had to reduce shadow quality etc) with my old PC.. Current top pc's can barely play the very high settings, if they ever enable ultra (unless they removed it), I think it'll be a while..

Now the only game i'm looking forward to is sc2.. (and will prob get ut3 soon)

PS.. it's not like the requirements aren't known, look at what's RECOMMENDED, a 8800GTS 640MB, while CoD4 recommends a 7800/x1800, which is way slower... (also what the consoles pretty much have).
November 29, 2007 9:05:05 PM

dariushro said:
Why do they release a game with beta code?

I was j/k mate, I was patronising people who said the beta ran bad because it was full of debug and unoptimised code, and that it would run much better in the full version. Shame that it still runs like a piece of poo.

@Stemnin: The funny thing is that the 8800GTS 640Mb really doesn't fit the bill for a "recommended specs" card. I think crytek failed badly at their target system.
November 29, 2007 10:20:07 PM

I pretty much agree with the article but I have only HL2 to compare. I have not played a shooter other than crysis that the driving of both trucks and boats with such realistic action. Its driving was as good as any car game and boat nothing has ever compared. The water is about the best I have seen from any game. The big let downs for me on crysis was some things did not have persistent body or rage doll affects in the way I would expect.
November 29, 2007 10:26:31 PM

Yes why did Far Cry have rag doll but not crysis?
December 10, 2007 8:44:04 PM

I think the graphics may be based on future hardware because they don't have to develop a new engine for the second and third installments. In game development time, by the time the third chapter came around, the game would look dated and likely require a new engine, which means higher development cost, and the risk of reviewers/gamers not liking any changes you may have made in the new engine. Releasing an engine that right now is a little TOO demanding, but looks and plays great, is a way of future-proofing themselves.

Just my .02
!