@DeathbyYeti said:
@MURDERSMASH: Brad loves every game and will tell how it's the best (insert word/genre here) he has ever seen/played and give it a 5 star review and then if he hasnt tried it or doesnt like it openly talk it down on the bombcast or other place. I listen to people who put more time into the game instead of checking it out so they can make content for a website.
The opinions on Crysis do not stem from the owners of this website but from the people who played the actual game that I've interacted with and on the internet. Apparently this is the only board on the internet where everyone likes Crysis
As for this generation of games, most noteworthy games are a media covered, multimillion dollar project that are too expensive to fail. I can not think of a game with "AAA" status that has influenced games other than being a expensive game that people have been told is "important" and "refined." Games now dont want you to press forward, they want you to buy more, so games become more simplistic and mediocre while becoming slightly shinier
Hyperbole, hand-waving dismissal of reviewers you disagree with, anecdotal evidence, and conspiracy theories. Come on, man. If you're going to make an argument for why Crysis isn't good, you have to do better than this.
First off, it's important to consider the angle in which game reviewers actually write the reviews. You're trying to do this, and that's cool. It also makes sense when you're attempting to purchase a game, and need advice. After all, they play through the entire campaign, mess around with the multiplayer for a while, and then judge it based on everything within that. Wouldn't most people do the same thing when they play a game? Not many people are buying games like Crysis to play it for 100+ hours and to pick apart every little flaw and imbalance in the process. Reviewers don't review the game from that angle either, so it only makes sense to trust reviewers in this case.
The reason you all should at least consider the Metacritic score is for an at-a-glance aggregate summary of all the reviews. What really matters, however, is what the reviews actually say, and guess what the ~60 reviews actually have to say about the game? Amazing graphics, crazy and emergent gunplay thanks in part to the nanosuit powers and destructible open-ended environments, action-packed single player, and big multiplayer battles (this is before CoD 4 really took off, i'm assuming). I would say that this is a pretty fair assessment of the game, considering that the vast majority of the reviews said the same things.
Something else to consider with Crysis. Have you seen this video series? This guy is a beast. Clearly, if Crysis had poor gameplay mechanics, he wouldn't be able to do all of this. Also if i'm not mistaken, he's playing it ironman-style on the hardest difficulty (Delta mode), where you no longer get a crosshair, enemies have more armor, and the enemies only speak Korean so us ignorant English-speaking people can't understand them. This points towards an interesting "New Game+"-style of design that a lot of games don't do these days. My favorite part in that first vid is around 34 minutes in, where he crashes a truck into a camp of dudes, blows up a jeep, and it flies into a tree. LOL!
I also want to know more about why you're so dismissive of Brad's reviews. What did you think of his Resident Evil 6 review? What about Medal of Honor: Warfighter? Steel Battallion? Kinect Star Wars? Velvet Assassin? I Am Alive? Lost Planet 2? New Super Mario Bros. U? And that's just off the top of my head, and/or a quick glance through a couple pages of low review scores. Clearly, he doesn't give every game a 5 star review, nor has he tried to tell us all how "it's the best XYZ game/genre he's ever played". You ever think that maybe, just maybe, a lot of the games he ends up reviewing and/or liking really ARE that good?
Log in to comment