User Reviews (1 - 11 of 130)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

I'll stick with FarCry

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 11 / 19
Date: December 02, 2007
Author: Amazon User

When you do something right, and then later do something wrong, it demands comparison, and requires criticism.

I love FarCry. It was for me near FPS perfection. For many, it had it's weaknesses, but I have played it through sooo many times, maybe too many. I definitely got my money's worth. Many of us love the FPS "duke nukem" style one against the impossible to beat invasion by "whatever" scenario.

So with such a challenging success in Far Cry, we were really looking forward to Crysis, but with this new one Crytek falls down hard. The big picture planning (plot) was great, but the top dogs should have followed through with the details. Minor examples: all of the voiced parts were weak; the video glitches were extreme; play style was inconsistent and too variable, and the end of the game is downright boooooooring. You finish with a "who cares" attitude.

The download-demo makes you think your getting FarCry "plus". Yea!!! But then with the one you pay for, the plot goes goofy and somebody begins to make this thing into their very poorly scripted "video project". With FarCry you have control over the action; with Crysis you're manipulated at the most inopportune times and to the nth degree and therefore feel depressingly bored. About two thirds of the way through I stopped liking what I was doing, and began feeling like I was playing something by/for girlie-men. So I guess subjectively, the last half of Crysis seemed pointless; in fact, objectively this phase is a huge step ... backward in time ... it reminded me of those old quarter eating "tetris?" video machine games we played in bars in the 70's, now it's just in 3d.

Oh and for you parents who are "real" parents, be warned: The language wasn't feminine: it is ridiculously foul and pointlessly so ... don't even think of allowing your teen to play this with the sound on.

So disappointing! After the first half, it was a huge waste of my time and I'm sure it will be - of your money too. So come-on Crytek, get your act together!

Wanted So Much More

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 8 / 21
Date: November 30, 2007
Author: Amazon User

Barely runs on my incredibly high end quad-core, sli, 8 gigs of mem, Vista Machine. I'm talking 19 frames at 1024 (and that is with the AA OFF?)
I wanted to love this game. I ended up trapped in a world of stupid AI, and graphics that need so much optimization that it isn't worth playing.
Crashtastic game.
You only see the high poly faces in Cinematic Moments.
It has pretty--but without playable pretty is a huge waste.
I'll go back to TimeShift on the PC. That is pretty and runs at 80 plus frames with everything on at 2560 resolution for me.

So much potential, but too many bugs to reach it.

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 8 / 11
Date: January 12, 2008
Author: Amazon User

With as much hype as there was for this game, I was really looking forward to it and I had such high hopes for Crysis. However, I should have known that because the very first thing I encountered after the installation was a bug, that I was going to find the game to be frustrating in the end.

Bugs are very often related to the vast array of hardware and software that make up our computers, so your experience may be different, but here are the specifications of the system I'm playing on so that there is a basis for comparison. I have a 2.4 GHz quad core CPU from Intel, the Q6600. My video card is the NVIDIA 8800 GT with 512 MB of video memory. I have 8 GB of RAM and I'm running Vista 64, so that I can use all of it.

On the initial load, the game chose 1024x768, which is quite different from my 1920x1200 desktop and apparently the makers of the game, Crytek, never considered this possibility, because I couldn't use the mouse to select any of the menu items; the origin of the screen and the origin of the mouse were different. This meant, that in order to click on a button my mouse pointer was somewhere off the lower right of my screen. This was not a good sign and didn't instill a good first impression. I ended up having to change my desktop to 1024x768 in order to click on any of the buttons on the main menu screen. (I retested this after patch 1.1 was released and it is still a problem, which shocked me, because when I first encountered the bug a quick search of the web revealed that I wasn't alone.)

The first two-thirds of the game are fairly fun, though nowhere near as intense, non-stop, or varied as Call of Duty 4. Although, the more open, less linear aspects of the early levels, give the player many opportunities to explore, I failed a couple of missions because I didn't realize that there were time constraints for success. Towards the middle of the game, there is a very linear, zero-gravity, level that is a bit boring, very confusing, and adds little to the game. After this level is where the really annoying bugs begin.

After the zero-g level, another marine has modified for his personal use, one of the alien's weapons. Aside from being nearly ineffectual, the sound produced by this gun introduced a new bug, where all of my speakers started popping and a distorted version of the alien gun sounds would continue without end, even making it impossible to understand what the characters said. Turn on subtitles so you can work through these sorts of bugs. In the same scene, there were some graphical bugs where the aliens legs would stick to one part of the world while the rest of the alien continued on its way to some other part of the world, leave stretched, blue alien parts across my screen. This continued even after installing the patch.

In the last level, on the aircraft carrier, the game really heads south. For the entire game, I'd been playing at 1920x1200, with no antialiasing, and all of the advanced settings on medium. These settings were unplayable on the aircraft carrier. Perhaps Crytek ran out of time to optimize the performance of this level. In my view, they should have delayed the release. This is not really helped by the patch, either.

The next bug involves saving and loading the game. In the early levels, loading a level for the first time would take less than 30 seconds and loading or saving a game that was in progress was nearly instantaneous. However, during the Reckoning level, these actions would take several minutes. I actually used the task manager to kill the game several times when this first started, because the automatic load after death took so long I was sure the game had frozen, but no, this was just how long it took. This was not fixed by patch 1.1. At this point, I'm beginning to wonder what the patch was for.

The final encounter of the game takes place on the aircraft carrier's deck, which due to even more bugs, is not solid. I must have fallen through the "solid" surface to the rooms below or into the ocean a couple of dozen times. This was annoying enough, bug combined with the several minute load times make this last part of the game, not worth playing. I stuck it out to the end and finished the boss, at which point the game says "checkpoint reached" and promptly hangs. Since the game normally automatically saves after a check point, I left my screen frozen there for 20 minutes before giving up and killing the process. As you might have guessed by now, this was not fixed by the patch.

Of course, since it hadn't saved my game, I got to do the final encounter again, but after falling through the deck several more times, I decided that it just wasn't worth the aggravation.

With all of the games out there, I find it impossible to recommend Crysis due to its many, many bugs.

vista schmista !

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 7 / 18
Date: December 01, 2007
Author: Amazon User

try and get this game to work in Vista, I dare you.
with 3gb memory, an 8800 GTS video card, and the game looks like Quake back in 1995... what the hell is going on ??? No patch, no support, no help.. go to hell if you think I'm recommending this turd to my friends. PUARFS!

Cray Supercomputer Required!!!

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 8 / 18
Date: December 07, 2007
Author: Amazon User

Listen, I am sick and tired of seeing the ads for this game in magazines and on the web. If you see them then you are forced to believe that the graphics shown are actually attainable. They are not. Yes, the graphics are "amazing" but only if you have a Cray supercomputer to run the game on. This is very upsetting to me. My system is very solid and I refuse to be forced to "dummy down" my graphics settings to play a $50 game. Doing so makes it look like FarCry from 5 years ago. Obviously, the graphics you see in the ads cannot be run on most machines...even gaming enthusiast's machines. So, why buy this game if you cannot enjoy its biggest asset (great graphics)???

There are no graphic optimizations done by this company. What a let down.

Also, anyone who has played Battlefield 2142 knows that EA does not support multiplayer at all. It barely has forums on its website. You can forget any meaningful technical support from this company.

Waste of money and promises not put into game!

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 4 / 13
Date: December 05, 2007
Author: Amazon User

So I get hyped for months over this game and was dazzled by the beautiful trailers and gameplay videos that blew me away. Only to have them not in the game, or set at absurd levels that make it unplayable.

I hyped this game and thought it was the greatest game of the year, BS! Pretty and fun for the first half and then they forgot that they needed to end it and rushed it to the stores. More BS.

You go from a cool jungle fighting sequence, to some moronic ship floating sequence to an IMPOSSIBLE VTOL flying sequence, which I gave up on as the controls are impossible and whoever thought that up should be hung.

There is no EASY, for the casual gamer such as myself. The game borders on insanity and you go from a jungle special forces guy, to a pilot and other nonsense.

The game was rushed, because that is the state of gaming nowadays, greedy morons that could care less about quality, just rush it to the shelves.

So I wasted 50 bucks, and will not finish this game or buy anything from these aholes again.

To give you an idea, I put the cheat codes in and I still got killed. The VTOL level is impossible and that was the end.

Call of Duty 4 was fun, and makes up for it somehow, but they had those stupid phantom grenades again, so I am stuck waiting for a true PC game to come along. Thank you xbox tools for ruining gaming forever.

Non Specific Computer Characteristics

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 3 / 13
Date: January 08, 2008
Author: Amazon User

Was impossible to me play with this game, because need a special video card (the cost of this hard ware is over $ 300) non specificated in the web page.
Also the game is a DVD non the tradicional CD.
I waste my money in nothing.

Worst Game Ever written. Does not deserve the name "software".

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 2 / 11
Date: February 06, 2008
Author: Amazon User

This game is the webster's definition of garbage. The gameplay is an absolute joke. Set your suit to maximum armor, and shoot. Um, sorry but Red Faction has a better plot and multiplayer. I am not kidding. I can't pay someone enough to take this s^^% off my hands. Avoid at all costs, and it costs to play this game too. This brought my top-of-the-line machine with 2 gigs of DDR2 1000, and a core 2 duo e6600 to about 1/4 FPS at max settings with an overclocked/unlocked 8600 GTS. Fraps read zero, i had to count the frames. Turning things down to low at 800x600 got me up into the 30's again, except when explosions or cutscenes took place.

BIG disappointment

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 2 / 3
Date: April 30, 2008
Author: Amazon User

I am VERY disappointed by this game. I have a very high end gaming machine and I have problems running this at lowest settings. At higher settings it doesn't run at all. I'm running a dual core system with dual Nvidia graphics cards and this game sucks! If I could take the game back and get my money I would. Once again EA rips me off. I'll never buy another EA product.

Could have been great, instead...clumsy version of old Far Cry game!!

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 6 / 21
Date: November 20, 2007
Author: Amazon User

If you played Far Cry, then you know what this game is about and what you were expecting. The graphics are fantastic but the game play is on a lower level when compared to Far Cry.

PROS -
Basically, you are getting more Far Cry! LONG OVER DUE!!!
Excellent graphics.
New weapons.
Nano Suit - give you super human abilities.

CONS -
Linear game play with too many scripted events.(In other words, you cannot venture around and find alternate attack routes as much as you did in Far Cry and as soon as the game hits a save point, you know action is about to happen. It takes away all the surprise!)

BUGGY. This game crashes a lot. You can review different gaming forums and read the horror stories. Pretty pathetic for the excellent team of people behind CRYSIS to have released this clunker piece of manure out before it was well tested! I cannot play for more than 20 minutes without crashing out. (Yes I am updated and even running the latest NVIDIA beta drivers designed to resolve CRYSIS problems!)

This is kind of just like Far Cry all over again.
Another scientific experiment gone wrong.
Another batch of aliens invades the earth.
The worst part is, you spend the entire 2nd half of the game fighting aliens. UGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Also, the AI was crappy. I found the enemy to be VERY stupid and not very aggressive. In Far Cry the soldiers would come after me, flank me, attack hard. I almost could fall asleep at times waiting for the soldiers to do something!!!!

This could have been the game we were waiting for. Instead, it is a clumsy, half finished, unpolished remake of a great game!

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next 

Actions