Cryostasis

If you have a great PC and like narrative FPS in the Survival/Horror genre, check this game out. Gamersgate had it for 12 bucks (on sale), but you might need a different version to use the patch they recently released. $30 bucks elsewhere.

Finished it a few weeks ago. I grabbed it when it was on sale the first time for $15. I thought it was ok, but I'm glad I didn't pay more for it.

I tried playing it but the game did NOT respond to my computer well. The lighting and graphics were really weird and I couldn't see anything very well.

It's a very poorly optimized game. Core 2 6700, Geforce 8800GTS 512, 4GB RAM….and it ran like crap at 1280x1024.

I agree with the above sentiments - OK game, lousy performance. But at $12, not terrible - I also paid $15, and while it wasn't great, that is really a bargain price.

Yeah - I also heard it had some issues with ATI cards. Like I'd have weird planes of light just blocking my vision every time I went anywhere. Never found out what caused it. Played it for about twenty minutes then gave up.

That's 15 bucks that I could have used for other things! Like…fifteen tacos at taco bell! Or, seven tacos and eight burritos! With enough change left over to throw at someone!

ya, there was a post pointing out the 8 developers from nvidia that helped with the game, 1 ati person was listed. I have a gtx 280 at 1920x1200 and average about 30fps with settings maxed save for AA. It's clunky.

After finishing it I'm still trying to work out what to make of it, but I did enjoy it. It's certainly different. The game worked well enough on my machine, so no technical things distracting me though.

So, the game's basically a parable with the ice-burg and the zombies a metaphor? Is that how everybody else took it?

Originally Posted by The Usernameless One
After finishing it I'm still trying to work out what to make of it, but I did enjoy it. It's certainly different. The game worked well enough on my machine, so no technical things distracting me though.

So, the game's basically a parable with the ice-burg and the zombies a metaphor? Is that how everybody else took it?

I didn't know how to take it to be honest with you, it almost reminded me of Silent Hill in the way that a lot of things didn't make sense and they never bothered to explain them. It didn't offer much of a scare factor either, I don't recall ever feeling jumpy, or even feeling much anticipation. Definitely a letdown for that type of game.



Other than that, I thought Cryostasis was mostly mediocre. The previews made it seem a lot better than it was imo.

The reviews I read about the game said its nothing special. I was only interested because of the physx effects with nvidia card. I dont think its worth getting unless you have played all the better shooters out there (for one I have not).

Even if you concentrate on the best shooters thers more than enough of choice. If you try buying mediocre ones youll drown into them. Also imho cheapness is no factor because you can get any game good or bad cheap sooner or later.

"The reviews I read about the game said its nothing special. I was only interested because of the physx effects with nvidia card. I dont think its worth getting unless you have played all the better shooters out there (for one I have not)."

I sorta think of this game as adventure with some FPS elements, but there just aren't enough enemies or a fast pace to be a full blown FPS. Some of the reviews seem to miss that about this game, and spend time comparing it to Stalker or Crysis.

Gamespot mention the adventure side but whether its good enough to rise the game over mediocry is another thing. 14 reviews and 602 players agree that its only a 70% game. Even if it has som good adventure parts it must be somways flawed or very mediocre othervice to acheive such a low status. Allthough it does seem to have lots of mixed opinnions so it could be a niche game too.

I agree Melvil, that's how I think of it as well.

70% feels about right to me though. Somewhere in the seventies. But I don't look down on that as 'only a 70 game', the game to me was still interesting.

JDR, that part was neat, and unexpected.

I differentiate 'average' from 'mediocre' … and 70% I'd call average. (50 - 60% as mediocre, less than that poor)

Originally Posted by The Usernameless One
I agree Melvil, that's how I think of it as well.

70% feels about right to me though. Somewhere in the seventies. But I don't look down on that as 'only a 70 game', the game to me was still interesting.

JDR, that part was neat, and unexpected.

I see it more like "do I want to buy 70s games when I have shelf full of 90+ games left to play?". If I try to buy and play every game starting from the 70% ill run out of money and time very quick.

Originally Posted by zakhal
I see it more like "do I want to buy 70s games when I have shelf full of 90+ games left to play?". If I try to buy and play every game starting from the 70% ill run out of money and time very quick.

The mere percentage is not a good measure.

E. G. on metacritic Oblivion gets 94%.

On the other hand, VTM-Bloodlines gets 80%, Drakensang gets 74%, the Spellforce AddOn/expansion Breath of Winter gets 64%, and all of these games are better than Oblivion in my opinion. If I had the criterion to buy only 90% games, I would have missed them.

Using your criteria you would miss some of the better games.

These ratings areuseful as an information, how the mainstream thinks about a game, not how good it is for you.

I don't know Cryostasis, but e. g. if people expect a shooter and get an adventure with shooter mechanics, they will probably give a bad rating, which is however only of value for a shooter-only-fan.

It's why I like Kotaku's reviews. They spend a good deal of time talking about individual features they like or dislike and don't give it some arbitrary rating.

Speaking of arbitrary ratings, I think this quote from the simpsons illustrates how IGN and other places assign review scores:

Originally Posted by homer
Sorry Marge, I'm afraid this gets my lowest rating ever. Seven thumbs up

.

Originally Posted by bkrueger
The mere percentage is not a good measure.

E. G. on metacritic Oblivion gets 94%.

On the other hand, VTM-Bloodlines gets 80%, Drakensang gets 74%, the Spellforce AddOn/expansion Breath of Winter gets 64%, and all of these games are better than Oblivion in my opinion.

I dont use metacritic. I use mainly gamespot critic and user average. It has been very useful so far. In comparison spellforce breath of winter user average is 84%, drakensang is 80%, bloodlines is 87%. Thats the base for every purchase and if its not enough I dig deeper.

If I had the criterion to buy only 90% games, I would have missed them.

Using your criteria you would miss some of the better games.

I dont have a criteria of buying "only" 90% games. Im just very careful with 80% and xtremely careful with 70% and below. There are exceptions of course like the excellent mod support of bloodlines or my fandom towards spellforce series which give them extra credits.

Drakensang was very much on the border - I spent lot of time pondering before I got it. The colorful world, the fact that it was not d&d, based (more or less) on same system as the old RoA games and fixes like faster walking was enough to tip it. Somtimes the devil is in the details truly.

Originally Posted by bkrueger

These ratings areuseful as an information, how the mainstream thinks about a game, not how good it is for you.

Critic and user reviews in gamespot dont give just scores - they give the reasons behind them too and number of people who support those reasons. Its much more than just blind numbers.

If you read multiple user reviews that give say 80-90% and you like what the reviewers are saying and they are supported by multiple people then it might be that the game has somthing for you even if it othervice scores poorly.

Cryostasis had som of those reviews too but it wasnt enough for me. If I buy anymore fps it really must be good on all levels even if its hybrid and not "pure" fps. In the meantime I have games like bioshock or nolf2 to play just to name few (have barely started).

@zakhal: The way you are explaining it now is very similar to my way of looking at reviews, especially using the content of user commentaries in the user votes.

Of course, since GameSpot users are the same ones posting on some of the absolutely most flaming, useless, and infantile forums … and their critical staff has been gutted and shown to be 'on the take' … I don't know how you could do much worse …