TheParanoidGamer Review: Crysis

Daniel of TheParanoidGamer Writes: "When Crysis originally released it was all about the graphics. Even as a console gamer I’d of course heard of the monster PC you would need to run the game at optimal levels. Fast forward 4 years and us console gamers finally get to try our hand at the original outing. Is it worth the download?"

[Son_Lee]

4/10? Seriously? The graphics - for a console port of a PC game - hold up well. The gameplay takes some getting used to, but once you do, it becomes fun. There are some minor hiccups, but this game is amazing. I give it 9.5/10.

[BattleAxe]

Don't worry about it, the reviewer is an idiot.

[Delt4]

I cant see how you could rate this under a 7. Sure the graphics arnt what they are on pc. Maybe its not your basic controles that you are used to but the game is awesome for a 5 year old game ported over from PC.

[Mozilla89]

Probably just looking for hits. It's not a game most people would rate this low even though it's a few years old.

[Pandamobile]

Terrible review.

[dangert12]

how can you expect a good review from a paranoid gamer chances are he missed all the good bit In fear of something happening lol

[Clayman]

To me this is one of the best looking games I have played on consoles. Add in fun gameplay and open environments and you get a game deserving at least an 8.5.

[LightofDarkness]

Definitely just looking for hits.

Word to the wise: this is why gamers think review scores are arbitrary and meaningless. Crysis is FAR from a 4/10. A 5/10 would be your average, completely mediocre game when compared to the latest perfect 10 game. A 5/10 may be perfectly playable, but is abjectly mediocre in just about every respect.

Below a 5 and you begin to venture into the realm of technical fault. When you're this far, the game must be not only mediocre to play, it must also have technical limitations that prevent enjoyment even further. Such as glitches and bugs. You could use a 4/10 to describe a remarkably below average game, despite no technical flaws, but this rarely occurs. Below a 4: some aspects of the game are broken. Below a 2: the game is either unplayable or verges on it. A 1 is a complete an utter failure, THE worst example of gaming ever produced.

In my honest estimation, console Crysis:

Graphics: 9 (not THE best, but close)
Gameplay: 8.5 (consistently great)
Technical Presentation: 9 (consistently free of bugs and visible glitches, framerate remains steady throughout with very few dips below 30FPS, menus/navigation are good but not the best)
Story: 7 (not going to win any awards, but enjoyable enough and the player has a pretty good idea of what's going on through most of the campaign)
Fun Factor/Tilt (how much the reviewer enjoyed the game): 9 (I personally had a great deal of fun with the game, the sandbox and physics elements can provide a few good hours of extra enjoyment, blowing up shacks and toying with enemy soldiers)

Score: 8.5 (average, as it should be, otherwise the end score is utterly arbitrary, look to fun factor if you want an idea of what that might be)

IMO, that's a review done right. I left out multiplayer because it's not applicable here.

[Delt4]

See now that a review worth looking at.

But you wont get any hits that way ;)

[xyxzor]

I think if you *actually* read the review then you could understand why it got the score it did. This is a quality example of this community putting an emphasis on the score rather than content of the review which completely defends the score.

I think if you had any idea on how we run the site you wouldn't make completely absurd accusations.

[Tachyon_Nova]

Alright well on the review, I think a lot of the reviewers (you?) problems with the game come down go their lack of understanding of how things work.

One point you make is that the walking speed is a bit slow. I mean are you serious? For one you are supposed to use speed mode to get around more quickly, and secondly if you don't want to drain nanosuit energy then wack it on armour mode and you can can still run without it draining energy. It isn't as fast as speed mode but its much faster than walking, and definetly faster than you can run in Killzone, which is an example you use.

Another point you mention is that the stealth is broken. OK, maybe they can spot you from ages away when your in cover, ill give you that. But you problems with cloak mode are stupid. Anyone who fires from in cloak mode is an idiot, because as yiuve discovred it drains your cloak instantly. To overcome this, get in a position where youre ready to strike, pop on armour mode while your shooting and then quickly switch back to cloak. And there you have it, you can go back to stealth after killing someone after all. Its only 2020 ffs, 9 years away and yet you seem to expect a cloak which lasts forever.

[xyxzor]

Alright well on the review, I think a lot of the reviewers (you?) problems with the game come down go their lack of understanding of how things work.

I didn't review this title, yet I would have given no more than a 6. I hate the logic you use. Most of us have been playing games for several years. It's not like Crysis specifically offers some sort of advanced gameplay setup. Fundamentally Crysis' stealth elements are broken. People have been so quick to put the blame on gamers these days. You suck, you're not playing the way the game is intended, Blah, blah, blah. Those are just excuses to cover up a really flawed experience.

It's not like he used that as a basis for hating the game. He thought the story sucked, the weapons were generic, the graphics weren't that great, and much more. Stop keying in on one issue to try and discredit the reviewer. It's childish.

[Information Minister]

What's up with reviewers these days? Is there some kind of new heavy drug on the market?

[TKCMuzzer]

There does seem to be a few reviewers around trying to make a name for themselves. Oh that's right their not reviewers their just people with websites. How the internet is blurring the line.

8.5/10 for Crysis .3/10 for the review and that's because he managed to use a keyboard.

[lugia 4000]

If you want to be a view whore, put 4/10 BF3 not crysis bro.

[FreydaWright]

I enjoyed this title thoroughly on PS3. There is no way in hell that my laptop would play Crysis. It was nice having this title with still excellent visuals but not having to buy a gaming rig for the experience. What can I say? I'm a college student trying to survive. I can't justify buying another PC when that money could be invested in sufficing my most basic needs -- food, clothing, and shelter. Twenty dollars for this title allowed for me to still buy groceries the next day.

[josephayal]

This game is a solid 9/10

[xyxzor]

Yes, we are just looking for hits. Give me a break. This particular reviewer didn't enjoy Crysis that much. Get over it.