according to Rooted_Dust, PC Gamer gave Crysis 98/100. For reference they gave BioShock 94. Talking about art for Crysis isnt entirely valid unless you take into account making a game that looks as real as Crysis requires quite some clever detail and programming.
could someone please point me in the direction of specs needed to run this at max, me and a mate are building a pc soon and just want to no what specs are needed as ill be picking up this game. Thanks
Graphics are not only about technology and HD graphics. Art direction and design have a big part in graphics. Technical and Art design together make the graphics and while technically Crysis is the best game it's art design might not be the best.
Not to say this game can't get such scores, but I would take this review with a pinch of salt.
Personally, I think the main issue with this game is the lack of narrative. Or atleast, that's what seems to be the case. I haven't seen any interaction with other NPC's (except for killing them) and no PROPER story background has been revealed to my knowlegde. Either there isn't any, or they have just not shown any of it yet.
No matter how great the gameplay is, there needs to be some kind of interaction with the characters and the story, otherwise it will just be acknowledged as a pretty Tech-demo.
I'm really curious to see some 'proper' reviews of this game.
Just because they haven't show much narrative doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Read PC Gamer's 5-page revieww when becomes available on the news stand. I'm a subscriber so I got it early. They gave it a 98% and called it the best FPS of the year. They also stated that it has a well paced story line with quality voice acting. So just because Crytek chooses to show off their graphics and gameplay doesn't mean the game is that shallow.
Nowhere in my post have I stated that Crysis has no narrative. But you'd already know that if you read my post properly.
If there is a great narrative and Crytek has deliberately not shown this to focus on just the graphics and gameplay, then that is a bad move imo. Look around, the main issue people seem to have with this game is exactly what I fear which I refere to in my previous post.
If it's there and it's really that good then awesome! But the way Crytek has been pitching it, is as a pretty tech-demo. So it's their own fault when this kind of misconceptions arise!
I said it once and I'll say it again, it plays like Super Farcry with a Nano Suit with vastly improved graphics. I'm picking it up but I hope the gameplay against the aliens is better than the humans, as they all look the same. It really just boiled down to being a pretty shooter for me when I played it. But that's just the demo and I thought I read that the aliens were supposed to be able to change the environment drastically realtime.
I don't trust reviews that throw out 10s so easily because I'll judge that much more when I finally do play it. Like Bioshock, people were throwing 10s left and right and I found a very pretty atmospheric dumbed down System Shock II with no death penalty. 9.2 seems like I should expect a lot but not the world so I'm hoping my prerelease fears are alleviated when it finally comes out.
Another post says that they gave 9.2 to BioShock and 9.1 to Stranglehold! Only 0.1 difference between a GOTY worthy title and a fun arcadish shooter?
could someone please point me in the direction of specs needed to run this at max, me and a mate are building a pc soon and just want to no what specs are needed as ill be picking up this game. Thanks
anything less than 10/10 in graphics.
95% graphic
Wasn't this suppose to be the best looking game out there?
What game looks better than Cysis?