VG247 Writes: EA has predicted its upcoming sci-fi shooter Crysis 2 will be a critically acclaimed game.
i think it seems likely that it's going to be very acclaimed, bring on March!
I'm getting this for the multiplayer everything else is just icing on the cake.
It's typical EA posturing. " Our game is the best ever and will be highly rated "...lol. Then why is it not coming out in November like it was suppose too? It may turn out to be a good game, but it may turn out to be a dud as well. I haven't scene anything YET that I haven't scene before and lets not forget that many gamers believe the footage is from the PC build and does not reflect the final product on consoles. Remember when the game crashed and the windows screen popped up. EA threaten to sue any site that ran that video. Lets not forget Bulletstorm, KZ 3, Gears Of War 3, Bodycount, Portal 2 and a bunch of other quality games releasing with-in weeks of Crysis 2 in 2011. They delayed from November 2010 to march 2011 to avoid Halo Reach, MOH and COD...Hmmmm...I think the saying is...out of the water and into the fire...lol
becuz of the dozens of games that are coming out latr this year,especially blak ops and call of duty,medal of honor,n halo reach ND ONLY MORE
scene or SEEN? That is the question.
Multiplayer and the Engine. Everything else is just bragging rights.
Rated less than the first? =0 http://www.metacritic.com/g...
they've got their priorities straight. No "this game will be the best title that crytek put out", or "one of the best FPSs published by EA" ... nooo ... it's all about the god damn scores which start to mean less and less with each day.
if they're so sure then why dont they make all their games 90 rated games ? anyway didn't Halo3 get 100% rating,this is how much rating means these days. you gotta LoL @ EA @ BeaArthur of course its relevant (Halo 3 did screw game ratings for ever) but obviously to butthurt xbox fans its not. 1 bubble= immature
1 bubble = irrelevant opinion.
Halo 3 screwed game ratings forever?? lmao! The 98 average for GTA4 is okay though, right? Thanks for the laugh N2G.
"Halo 3 screwed games ratings for ever" and in other news your a 12 year old ass clown who thinks that saying clever sh1t for your ps3 ass clown buddies will get you more bubbles
we will see how it goes when released
Why wouldnt they go for 100? Why stop at 90?
What if it gets a 80 rating? Will the world end then?
That, or it might get invaded by alienoids!
I mean, rating, do we really need ratings? Sure ratings may be important for someone but in the end, you know if you like a game nor not. Every time I see ratings from a new game today they are usually used by consumer to brag about their console. I am by no means saying a high ratings are BS or anything, but I feel they aren't here anymore to actually tell you that this game is good. IMO, we would be better off without ratings. Not sure what the consequences would be tho.
I think they should be more concerned about making GREAT versions on all consoles, vs a crappy port for one of the consoles.
is all about hype and money
wtf dude, there is something fishy going on
Even though I could care less for the game, I'm still going to play it just to see what all the hype is all about. Right now the graphics are awesome, but considering the environment looks blah and empty, the graphics should be expected since there is not a hell of a lot going on. Who knows it might turn out to be fun game, but at this moment the gameplay look meh.
Yeah cause Metacritic is what really matters right? Seriously though, besides the graphics, crysis 2 doesn't even look that much fun. I seen the multiplayer vids for crysis 2 yesterday, standard TDM FTL!
Uh, just about every other shooter has that too, and that's about the only mode people ever play. I don't think I'll even touch multiplayer. Single player looks great, and if it's anything like the first Crysis and Warhead it will be.
Metacritic is useless. In all honesty, Crysis 2 comes in third behind Black Ops and Halo Reach for shooters. I would love to eventually get around to playing it when & if i can find the time.
From a consumer point of view Metacritic can be totally not important. But, to a publisher/developer, it can mean a lot. Employees who work on a game might get bonuses based on how high the metacritic score gets. Plus, the score can determine how a sequel or if a sequel gets made, as-well-as how much money the publisher is willing to invest in future marketing, ect.
I agree Zinc. I was speaking as a consumer. There's too many no-name site reviews on Metacritic for me to take the average score seriously.
The scores are kind of useless, but i think the review texts especially the user review ones, can be very helpful.
The multiplayer is going to be boring and suck.
It probably will be. Most games do hit there targeted ratings, usually set by the publisher. Not all games target the upper end, either. I think Enslaved - Journey to the west is targeting a 75-85 for example. It's come to a point that developers have to compromise there idea, to fit into what's considered acceptable by the mainstream, if they don't they get lower review scores. Leaving the typically generic at the top, and those that try to do something new, down the bottom, which is why most developers don't try to take the chance anymore. Lost Planet 2 for example, as far as I saw, the primary problem reviewers had with the game was it's control scheme. It plays perfectly fine within it's control scheme, developers gripped on how the grapple hook wouldn't let you swing like bionic commando, and you weren't able to run very fast. This is how Capcom wanted the game to play, and it is fun once you embrace that.
That's such a strange thing for a publisher to say. We live in a time when we're constantly speculating that publishers pay off review sites for high scores. For EA to say this just makes me more suspicious. So far from what I've seen Crysis 2 does 'look' impressive. But visuals don't mean much to me.
When I'm searching for new games to flow, first I check out a few mags that suit my tastes. Previews give me a good base of some new games to follow. I usually track a few games at once and if I'm not totally convinced on a game by launch day I will check the scores. Generally speaking the scores tend to lead to a good purchase. Not everytime, but I also don't just buy every thing that gets a good score. I will almost always buy a game that receives the top score (10's, 5 stars , 62 hippo's, etc.) It is actually a decent tool in helping you find a game that YOU want to play. I've seen fancy cover art before, and been tempted to buy a game but after checking the score see that its only slightly better than ET 2600 I've saves my hard earned $60. Sometimes I will rent a game that got a low score and sure enough its crap. (legendary). But then again sometimes the review can lead you astray. I'm sure some people thought lair was just awful cuz of the control scheme getting shit on in every single review...however I had a good time with it and didn't really mind the slightly unresponsive six-axis controls, because it was new and cool. Is never done anything like it before. All in all the scores are there to help you the consumer. That's their primary function.I seriously doubt ppl r getting paid to hand out 10's......
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.