Crysis gets record review score

Looks like pc gamer rated crysis 98% in thier december issue, which is only the second game to get a 98% ever from them, it must be mind blowing after the parts in the demo we played.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysis/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-39377669&pid=931665

 

I've stopped listening to those review scores for a long time. Only one that I put much faith into is XPlay's. 5 star system actually means something. The difference between a 98 and a 97, or a 90 for that fact is over my head. Pretty much comes down to an arbitrary number in a range.

 

wouldnt it just be like a 9.8/10 at gamespot..another game reviewer in the UK gave it a 9.2/10

 

Yeah, I'm not arguing that it's not a great game, just that when you use too many numbers, your review score starts to fade in its efficacy.

 

Dont listen to those "professional" reviews nowadays. You dont need other people telling you whats good and whats bad...... Yourself is the only real reviewer.

 

uh after they gave Hellgate: London an 89% I decided to stop listening to them.

 

i'd have given hellgate a lower score than that myself. it's all about find the review who's taste is closest to yours and follow them. because they don't agree with you makes them in no way wrong.

we need reviewers and demos. i'd hate to be the guy who paid for the game and wrote the review about how crappy it was when there were already hundreds of reviews stating the same thing.

 

the fact that i like strategy games and ww2 shooters more than anything else kind of makes most reviews useless.

 

hellgate should have been reviewed around the 60-70% range. It is mediocre game.

what was the other game that got 98% in pc gamer? Anyone know of any sites that have done reviews?

 

I'm pretty sure Half-Life 2 got 98%. Some strategy game too if I'm not mistaken.

 

probably CoH or M2 total war.

 

Reviews are useful, because things that are reviewed are usually quite expensive. In the case of games, there are numerous platforms and plenty of competition all selling games.

Games are only entertainment, so I don't download every demo; I don't have time nor desire. I listen to reviews from a number of sources, but I trust only a few. PC Gamer was one source that I always found truthful.

But I always found that "big" games always got high scores. The FPS genre was particularly vulnerable because FPS's are pretty basic. There's not much that changes - run, shoot, kill. Here's some review history...

http://www.answers.com/topic/video-games-that-have-been-considered-the-greatest-ever?cat=technology

About halfway down, you will see the number and type of games that have been given perfect scores by different publications/websites.

Noteably, a list of PC Gamer's "Best Games" contains a few FPS games:
Doom: Not the first FPS, but the most polished with the best graphics and coolest weaponry/enemies.
Quake 1 / 2: Multiplayer FPS. Graphics were a massive improvement. Quake 2 was the game that made me buy a VooDoo graphics accelerator. I believe it was a VooDoo 1 Weapons are not only pickups, but can be found in the environment (aka gun turrets to mow down swarms of enemies, explosive barrels, etc.) The levels were BROWN and BLACK interiors. Some voice acting and a story - you're a marine and strogg are invading. Kill them all, basically, to get out.
Half-Life: Combination of Single and Multiplayer FPS. Graphics are modified and improved quake engine, but environments are varied and well-designed. Voice acting is prominent. Characters like "Barneys" and "Mr. Scientists", and the creepy "G-Man", have substance. Enemies are interesting, varied, difficult, and inventive.

Just using those 4 games as examples, there's something in each FPS that always improves: graphics. Groundbreaking games are not merely graphics fests--FPS gamers expect graphics to improve. But each successive game has more complex features that previous games didn't have. A great example is quake 2--stationary turrets appeared in that game (if not, then i'm confused with Half Life. But one of those games had turrets.) Stationary turrets don't make a game, but they DO let the devs send hordes of baddies to their deaths at the hands of a 60cal machine turret > >

Moments like that are what make Medal of Honor, Deus Ex, Oblivion, Crysis, etc etc etc etc worth playing. (Not that Oblivion has 60 cal turrets, but you know what I'm getting at..right?) Special moments, and also the pacing between them, are what make novels/movies/games worth purchasing. Review scores should represent the whole package of a game: graphics are a part; sound and music amplify intense sequences; guns and weaponry have new and cool uses; vehicles can be driven and used; trees can be shot down and exploded;...so now that crysis has 98%, is it worth getting after I've played the not-so-impressive demo?

I have to say that the cool-factor of shooting down palm trees gets old when I do it, but when I'm getting shot at, and a palm tree falls in the way of my humvee and smashes the windshield in real time, I do get impressed So if frantic and exciting things happen in combination with the physics and game engine, then maybe crysis is worth buying...

 

Half-Life 2 and Alpha Centauri

 

I strongly agree with the guy with the long post above. Graphics aren't everything, and at least from the Crysis demo, it looks like it's the *only* thing going for the game (assuming you could even set your system to play it at a level that you can take advantage of those killer graphics).

As mentioned, the more heavily-advertised and publicized games (the "big" games) always get high scores from the bigger commercial reviewers, especially the magazines. I mean, it *could* be possible that by virtue of being so "big" and having so much money invested in these games, they come out a really good product. Then again, there *could* also be a direct correlation between advertising and the reviewer. It's also sort of like how the major magazines tend to review the vanilla boring major-brand laptops really highly while completely bypassing much better laptops from smaller companies.

Graphics are important, but so many games today focus on graphics to the detriment of everything else. Where's the story? Where's the plot (no, wielding a gun to kill off some random alien-like invader and saving the world is NOT a plot, not a good one at any rate). Where's the character development? Where's the game? If this was all there was to it, it'd be more fun to go paint a some weird demon alien onto a target and go to the shooting range and pepper it with bullets. You get better sound effects (muffled), better graphics (you even get goggles if you want!), and the recoil is so realistic you don't even have to invest in a gamepad...

Instead, we just get bigger explosions, more bass to explosion sounds, bigger guns, bigger explosions...

It's really obvious when a game comes out with *poor* graphics, and that's inexcusable, but I'd be willing to take even *mediocre* graphics if they came out with a game that was decent in all the other areas too. As it is, I'd rather play FF7 again instead of Crysis

Ah well, I guess if there's demand and it sells, can't blame them.

 

actually i think the reality is that the games that tend to get the most hype about them and thus more reviews is because of the eyecandy they offer. i know this isn't the case with many gamers but looks sell, just look at oblivion. im pretty sure assassin's creed will get about the same amount of hype a couple of weeks before launch.

 

co signs...especially when companies are giving reviewers extra's for a great review

 

The thing is, Oblivion is a great game, and so is Crysis. Games with great graphics tend to be great overall, and should sell.