Cryostasis Review

By Jim Rossignol Published 24 February, 2009

The cold shoulder.

Version tested: PC

This strange Siberian action effort had the potential to be one of the most interesting first-person games of 2009. It's potential that it doesn't quite fulfil, but it is packed with ideas, and its wall of weirdness and mystery mean it's a breed apart from the corridors shooters we've all grown up with. Perhaps what's most immediately obvious about the game - which is set aboard a derelict ice-breaker ship in the far reaches of the Arctic - is that it puts its strange concept puzzles, such as they are, before combat. A moment where you use brains over brawn comes late to most shooters, but here it's one of the primary conceits. The fights that punctuate the rest feel like an afterthought, as if this was primarily an adventure game, and only secondarily a game about killing ice-zombies.

The subzero setting is certainly evocative. You're aboard the aforementioned vessel, The North Wind, presumably charged with the task of finding out what is going on. That's not explained. Instead you face a cryptic story about a mythical tribe, and are then dumped straight into the innards of a terrifying ship. As you head into the frozen spook-boat you discover two things: firstly, it's incredibly cold, and consequently you're on the verge of death. Secondly, you can travel into the past via corpses of people on the ship. The time-jumping sequences come thick and fast. Sometimes these are just flashback scenes from what happened on the ship, with you as disembodied observer. Other times, when you "enter" the past of a dead man, you are right there in the body of someone who died aboard the ice-breaker. You dive into their memories, become them, and change what happened to them. More on that in a bit. First let's talk cold.

Cryostasis does cold better than any game I can think of. Even Lost Planet seems like a fun snowy frolic by comparison. In the belly of the ship, and briefly out on the ice, you are at the mercy of horrendously low temperatures. Visually this is all splendidly realised: every surface is covered in a frosty, frondy sheen, and when things heat up the moisture trickles away in a slightly-too-fast defrost sequence. It's genuinely impressive stuff, and it leaves the game dripping with atmosphere. Plunging into parts of the ship where it's too cold even to breath is pretty intimidating, especially when you know you could be attacked at any time by the ship's terrifying inhabitants.

'Cryostasis' Screenshot 1

Frost and freezing effects are atmospheric. (Geddit! Aha.)

Fortunately, it's so cold that even the smallest heat source can offer you some solace. Your health and your temperature are one and the same, so if you're hurt then crouching over a fire or a hot piece of machinery will quickly restore you. It's an interesting idea, although it does seem a little foolish at times, particularly when you're warming your hands in the sullen glow of an electric desk lamp.

While the blood-stopping temperatures are a constant danger, they're never quite as worrying as the things which you encounter at regular intervals: creatures which were probably once the crew of the ship. They are basically zombies, but icy. They provide excellent scare fodder, leaping at you with a scream and a white-eyed face and teeth. They seem to have no trouble at all with the deep-freeze conditions, and even dive into the chilly waters that have part-flooded the ship. What are these things doing here? It's all part of the mystery, although it's clear that they were here when the vessel ran into trouble, because you encounter them in your weird embodied flashback sequences. Occasionally the flashback will collapse straight into the present, and someone you saw in the past will be just feet away, zombified and looking to kill you.

The flashbacks, when part of a "mental echo" of a highlighted corpse, allow you to change how the world is in the present. You apparently save the person from death, but also open the path for yourself. If they are not dead, then the door is opened, or a lever is pulled, or you are otherwise able to proceed. Of course things are not at all okay in the past either: something terrible has happened to the ship, and things are attacking you. Apparently, the captain of the ship is crackers too, and that doesn't bode well.

It's all rather frightening, but the frights are reduced and rendered somewhat irritating by the fact that your reaction to them is always so necessarily clumsy. Your control within the world feels gloopy and imprecise, as if you're a bit dizzy and trying to fight some treacle. Yes, you've heard this complaint a hundred times before: nice ideas, shame about the execution. This theme of "not-quite-there" runs throughout Cryostasis. It begins with a couple of instant-death situations, and escalates into puzzles and then fights that have to be repeated over and over, returning back to the checkpoint again and again, because they're just difficult and unfair.

Far worse still is the way the time-travelling system directs you. After a couple of jaunts into the past you realise there's no real game to it at all, despite that fact that you might beat on a zombie, or avoid plunging to your death. It's not problem-solving, or decision-making; it's just following the motions. You aren't deliberately changing the past to affect the future - you never think "oh and can solve this via that flashback" - you're just doing it, because that's the next sequence in the way of progress. Some of those sequences are extremely atmospheric - especially where they involve deep, cold water and hideous swimming zombies - but it might as well be a linear corridor shooter with buttons to press to open the next door. The net result is that much of the game is extremely laborious, which detracts enormously from its atmosphere of threat and mystery.

Which brings the game back to the actions-versus-brains thing: it's a game that wants to tell a story, and to commit completely to its grim, frozen, time-skipping nightmare world. That's admirable, but it does also make the entire experience feel reminiscent of point-and-click adventures of the past. In the worst of these games puzzles are not really puzzles, and the linear environments are little more than a stage on which a story - often rather awkwardly told - slowly unfolds. Except Cryostasis isn't an adventure made 3D and interactive; it also wants to be a first-person action game, and that doesn't quite work either.

Cryostasis is a brave, fascinating, often very beautiful game, but I find it impossible to recommend it - and not least because it runs like an exploded dog on most PCs. It's not quite creative enough - its environments fall into a monotony of samey rooms and bulkheads - and its combat is too clunky to be delicious. I'm certain that this is a game that some gamers will tuck into heartily, and happily. The ugly truth of the meal, however, is that's it's still frozen in the middle.

6 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Jim.

About Jim Rossignol

Read more articles from Jim by visiting the Jim Rossignol archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (70) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Gazza_UK #1 3 years ago

    Oooh never been first before ..... yay?

  • DFawkes #2 3 years ago

    I saw a review for this. Apparently, there a bit where you can mental echo a piece of hanging meat, and as the Cow release yourself and escape to freedom! Then the meat is no longer there in the present. A silly little thing, but the kind of thing I love in games.

  • rhubarbandcustard #3 3 years ago

    "Cryostasis is a brave, fascinating, often very beautiful game, but I find it impossible to recommend it - and not least because it runs like an exploded dog on most PCs."

    Insane system requirements is why my PC is mostly used to heat the room. For my gaming pleasure I stick with 360 and PS3 both of which could run this game without breaking a sweat.

    So will it come to consoles? No. It's a Russian developer.

  • layleeloo #4 3 years ago

    Just invest in a nice 4870 X2 and 8 GB of ram and you should be fine. I may give it a go. Give the old beast a work out since finishing Crysis. At least if its not fun for the player, it will give the machine tech something to enjoy! :-)

  • Triggerhappytel #5 3 years ago

    Shame, sounds like an interesting concept that's not quite there. At least it's trying to be a bit different from most FPSs.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #6 3 years ago

    It does sound very interesting. Maybe I can find a demo somewhere.

  • schachmatt #7 3 years ago

    rhubarbandcustard: How should a console even be able to run this without making the characters stick figures?

  • the_dudefather #8 3 years ago

    Looking forward to the user review by Mr Freeze:

    'This game kicks ICE, the graphics are pretty COOL, but the ending left me COLD

    bit buggy though, it kept FREEZING'

  • Baranga #9 3 years ago

    This game has cult status written all over it.
    I finished it a few weeks ago, and found it to be an amazing experience. The story was great too.

    By the way, that "cryptic story" is written by Maxim Gorky.

  • Tomo #10 3 years ago

    This looks right up my street but sadly I have a shit PC nowadays :/

  • rhubarbandcustard #11 3 years ago

    LayLeeLoo: "Just invest in a nice 4870 X2 and 8 GB of ram and you should be fine."

    Bargain.

    http://www.ebuye r.com/product/148852

  • Gurrah #12 3 years ago

    It's under 20£ on amazon, I'm buying it.

  • rhubarbandcustard #13 3 years ago

    SchmachMatt: Please see Gears Of War 2 (360) or Killzone 2 (PS3).

    A PC would struggle to run either of those without dropping frames. Windows comes with too many overheads on the system resources. Sure, you could re-install the OS and de-frag the hard drive AGAIN, but it really is simpler and cheaper to game on the consoles.

  • BobsUncle #14 3 years ago

    Game, 20 quid. For the rest of the system to run it, there's Mastercard.

  • penhalion #15 3 years ago

    There is a techdemo that shows some water effects and does a framerate analysis for you. My quad core 260 gtx managed 50, 16, 75 i.e mostly 50 frames lows dropped to 16 and highs were 75.

    This was running at 1920 * 1080 so I have no idea what a dog of a system would need to be not to run this game just fine.

  • Chufty #16 3 years ago

    A PC would not struggle to run those console greyfests. You're talking rubbish. And you really don't have to buy a £350 graphics card either, don't listen to the 'enthusiasts'.

  • Whizzo #17 3 years ago

    SchmachMatt: Please see Gears Of War 2 (360) or Killzone 2 (PS3).

    A PC would struggle to run either of those without dropping frames.

    Thank you for providing such insight, it's just as well I'd not taken a swig of my drink before reading it as my keyboard may well have been ruined.

  • robg #18 3 years ago

    This just confirms my theory that games starting or ending with "Cry" take a lot of computing power.

  • rhubarbandcustard #19 3 years ago

    Pc's couldn't even run GTA4 without major frame rate issues.

    [link url=http://www.giantbomb. com/news/gta-iv-pc-plagued-by-issues-some-users-get-steam-re funds/623/
    ]http://ww w.giantbomb.com/news/gta-iv-pc-...[/link]

    They wouldn't have a hope in hell of running Killzone 2.

  • thesombrerokid #20 3 years ago

    @rhubarbandcustard

    for the price of a ps3 i could build you a pc that'll last till the ps4's out easy, i built a pc for £500 a year and a half ago and no game of this console generation will struggle on it, since it easily out performs the consoles the games need to be ported to.

  • Whizzo #21 3 years ago

    Pc's couldn't even run GTA4 without major frame rate issues.
    Bad port runs badly, what a shocker!

    And yet Burnout Paradise runs stupidly well on not great PC kit due to Criterion doing a good job.
    Edited by 1 at 24/02/09 @ 12:32

  • thesombrerokid #22 3 years ago

    @rhubarbandcustard

    again the aforementioned pc would run GTA 4 like you wouldn't believe (HD Gaming anyone? not if you don't have a pc)
    Edited by 1 at 24/02/09 @ 12:36

  • rhubarbandcustard #23 3 years ago

    The Sombrerokid:

    It's not that I am not a PC gamer. I am and have been for going on 20 years. But, I genuinely believe that the 360 and PS3 have changed gaming in that the PC is effectively been made obsolete as a gaming platform if visual performance is your barometer by what you gauge as must have titles.

    Sure, some people will stick with PC for keyboard and mouse control, but for visuals its HD consoles all the way.

  • makariel #24 3 years ago

    @rhubarbandcustard:

    There are some advantages consoles have over pc's when it comes to gaming, but hardware power isn't one of them. If you believe that I guess you're somewhat blinded by m$ and sony-propaganda. Yes, the 360 and ps3 where a bargain when they came out. No, time didn't stop ever since: PC hardware got faster, better and cheaper. And as long as you're not running vista you get great framerates at ridiculous resolutions.

  • degville #25 3 years ago

    @thesombrerokid

    Ok so your offer was to rubarbandcustard but I would dearly like you to build me a pc that will last until the PS4 comes out ( and by "last" it has to run all pc games to a reasonable standard that come out) for the price of a PS3.
    So you have £250 to play with - can't wait to see it....
    oh actually I won't because you are talking arse...

  • thesombrerokid #26 3 years ago

    ehh there aren't any HD consoles yet, they run shitovision barely getting erect enough to manage 720p on a handful of brutally optimised games and hugely compromising in texture quality and effect volume when compared to the PC build

  • Darren #27 3 years ago

    Well I was totally engrossed in the review for the first part because the game sounded so wonderful and unique and different and then I got to page 2 and then saw the score at the bottom.

    What a shame... the concept sounds terrific but the structure and combat don't sound too great. That said, isn't the sluggishness because you're on the verge of death anyway? I mean it would be pretty silly if you could just dash around normally in combat, right?

    I've got the tech demo and it looks and runs superbly on my PC too with PhysX enabled (45 fps avg. @ 1680x1050 with everything maxed out) so I was really looking forward to this. I think I'll wait for it to drop below £20, at that price it could be worth checking out.

  • rhubarbandcustard #28 3 years ago

    Sombrerokid:

    Wow, just wow.

    I think I see now. For you its just classic PC snobbery. Honestly get over yourself. That kinda died out around 2005.

  • creepylizard #29 3 years ago

    then why oh, why did it get an above average score then? isn't that, by definition a recommendation?

  • IneptPercy #30 3 years ago

    So this is better than Fear 2 and I really liked Fear 2 so should like this...

    For the challenge of making a gaming PC that is better than the PS3 for games for £250 is possible... Just but that would involve some second hard parts and overclocking but it could be done.

    Out of interest do people not consider the value added of a PC, as in it does so much more, most of you are sat at one now reading this (yes a say most before I get the smart remarks)

    Most people are happy to spend £150-£200 on a PC for general use if not more so if you start with that as a baseline then add the price of the PS3 to add gaming ability to said PC, now that gives a £400 budget.

    I am not going to say its for everybody and there is advantages to consoles as always in the ease of use/plug&play stakes, buy owning a reasonable gaming PC and then seeing the difference in corss platform games makes it all worth while (to me anyway)

  • Darren #31 3 years ago

    @creepylizard - Very good point. It does seem rather bizarre to claim you cannot recommend the game you've reviewed but give it an above average score anyway. :?

  • Cappy #32 3 years ago

    This game sounds wonderful, I would buy it if a PS3 port was ever released.

  • Baranga #33 3 years ago

    Darren:

    The melee combat is like in Condemned or Escape From Butcher's Bay, but with a much better fist-fight system. The shooting feels like in BioShock (a bit clunky...). The game is very slow paced, so the slow combat doesn't harm it in any way.

    What level variety can you expect when the game is set in the exact replica of a Soviet icebreaker?

  • degville #34 3 years ago

    no the budget stays at £250.

    I have a old pc that does the basics so no need to add in another £150

    I accept fully that in the intervening years between console releases the PC catches up and overtakes the console ( at what point depends on how much you want to spend) but I know that a PS3 will still run games released for it right up until the end and the same cannot be said for this £250 quid pc I'm going to get built for me.

  • ps3owner #35 3 years ago

    This game makes you and your PC "Cry"... get it? hehe, CRYostasis... oh man, I am having lunch.

  • Darren #36 3 years ago

    This game is just £18 at Play.com, I've just ordered it now. Seems worth it at that price. :)

  • Darren #37 3 years ago

    If anyone is thinking of buying a new graphics card for this game then go for an NVIDIA one as the PhysX effects in the tech demo are very impressive and they won't run on ATI/AMD cards as they don't support it. If you have a PhysX card then you'll be OK though.

  • Rodchenko #38 3 years ago

    Pc's couldn't even run GTA4 without major frame rate issues.
    Bad port runs badly, what a shocker!

    Uhm.. correct me if I am wrong but aren't all games developed on PCs to begin with?

  • Cappy #39 3 years ago

    Yes, but GTA IV probably has a lot of code tailored specifically for the 360. Hence the problems with the PS3 version also.

  • Darren #40 3 years ago

    Nah, GTA IV was developed first on the consoles (I think the 360 initially) where it is heavily dependent on their CPUs. The PC version isn't very well optimised but is also biased toward the CPU and, as such, only runs well on quad-core PCs with high-end graphics cards at high to max. settings.

    It runs great on my PC for example, 55 fps @ 1680x1050 with everything but the View Distance (45) at max, but then I do have a Core i7/GTX 280/6 GB PC.

  • Javier·de·Ass #41 3 years ago

    "If anyone is thinking of buying a new graphics card for this game then go for an NVIDIA one as the PhysX effects in the tech demo are very impressive and they won't run on ATI/AMD cards as they don't support it. If you have a PhysX card then you'll be OK though."

    The techdemo is somewhat over the top though, the game doesn't slap those effects on anywhere near as thick and its performs is also a shitload better than that techdemo was. A decent core2 and a 8800gt runs this game fine.

  • XENgamer #42 3 years ago

    A shame I was quite looking forward to this ...probably get it when the price drops though.

  • Darren #43 3 years ago

    How cheap do you want it... it's only £18 at Play.com.

  • roz123 #44 3 years ago

    I run the techdemo on my PC and and it run fine. I think the problem with it not running on half the PCs is that it dosn't run half aswell on an ATI card as it relies on the Physx engine which creates the water effects. (the same reason it wouldnt run on any of the consoles)

    Rhubarb you are a fool. The problem with GTA4 was that it was completly unoptimized and rushed out for christmas. But the game runs superbly on settings that make the console versions look rubbish if you have a little clout.

    I bought a PC recently for £600 that put the consoles to shame. This is including a monitor capable of HD aswell as Windows Vista.
    E8500 Dual Core
    9800GT
    4 gigs Ram.

    Rhubarb you always go round moaning about PC snobbery but its not its just people responding to your silly out dated views. As you are the one who is constantly trying to bait these same arguments everytime a PC is mentioned.
    Another thing is that you can save a hell of alot of money on games and HD films if you are that way inclined.
    Edited by 1 at 24/02/09 @ 14:58

  • UncleLou #45 3 years ago

    Console this, console that. Just be quiet, noone is interested.

  • roz123 #46 3 years ago

    @ Rodchenko

    They are developed on PCs but they are made for the specific architecture of that consoles CPU. Its the same reason console emulation dosnt really work

  • rhubarbandcustard #47 3 years ago

    Jim Rossignol - Eurogamer reviewer
    "but I find it impossible to recommend it - and not least because it runs like an exploded dog on most PCs."

    RhubarbandCustard - Eurogamer Forum Superstar
    "Insane system requirements is why my PC is mostly used to heat the room. For my gaming pleasure I stick with 360 and PS3 both of which could run this game without breaking a sweat. So will it come to consoles? No. It's a Russian developer."

    Roz123 - Apparantly thick as shit
    "Rhubarb you always go round moaning about PC snobbery but its not its just people responding to your silly out dated views.. "


    Hey, if the reviewer points out that a game is unplayable due to system specs I am going to muse upon why I have chosen to move from PC gaming to console gaming.

    If you have a problem with that I suggest you bend over and fuck yourself with a long thorny stick. Asshole.
    Edited by 1 at 24/02/09 @ 15:31

  • rhubarbandcustard #48 3 years ago

    Or add me to your ignore list. Whatever.

  • UncleLou #49 3 years ago

    Hey, if the reviewer points out that a game is unplayable due to system specs I am going to muse upon why I have chosen to move from PC gaming to console gaming.

    Just makes you look a bit silly if you follow it up with nonsense like you then did.

    Not to mention that musing about console gaming in a review thread about a Russian game that wouldn't be on consoles in the first place because of tighter than Fort Knox, expensive license agreements is particularly strange.

    Consoles just aren't an option if you occasionally want to break from the "AAA"-standard fare. Heh, these idiotic generalisations work great, don't they.

  • rhubarbandcustard #50 3 years ago

    UncleLou:
    But if console gamers let it be known to Russian developers that there is a market for their product then they would invest in producing games for consoles.

    an example? How about this Polish made game:
    [link url=http://www.thewit cher.com/index.php
    ]http://www.thewit cher.com/index.php
    [/link]

    Now, wipe that smug smile off your face and get with the program. Dipshit.

  • UncleLou #51 3 years ago

    Hehe, as expected. Smiling smugly comes natural to me when looking at troll halfwits like you.

    Oh, and The Witcher? You mean the game that first had to prove it is a rip-roaring success on PCs, and now they can afford the licensing fees? Christ, you know less than I could have ever assumed.

    Edited by 1 at 24/02/09 @ 16:00

  • PlugMonkey #52 3 years ago

    @ rhubarb

    This:
    "but I find it impossible to recommend it - and not least because it runs like an exploded dog on most PCs."

    is a sign of a badly optimised game, not a bad gaming platform. I could give you a list of games as long as my arm that run like an exploded dog on the PS3, but it's not down to the PS3 being underpowered.

    I have a moderately specced PC, and the graphics it chucks out in Crysis are easily the equal of anything I have yet to see on my PS3 or X360.

  • Shabtai #53 3 years ago

    Did the reviwer try to switch the game graphics to use Shader Model 2 rather than 3 in the game options screen? A major performance boost is to be gained doing that, making the game as playable as any. It seems that the performance is a big issue in this review, and indeed the game runs like shite on shader model 3, but switiching it to 2 should pretty much squash that complaint completely.

    I would suggest to anyone who was put off by how the game runs to recheck how it handles on SM2.

  • Rodchenko #54 3 years ago

    Nah, GTA IV was developed first on the consoles (I think the 360 initially) where it is heavily dependent on their CPUs.

    I know that. But technically it was developed *for* the 360 (using a PC), not 'on' it. That was the whole point.

    / wiggles index finger

  • Feanor #55 3 years ago

    Please rhubarb, run along and play some sub 720p game at barely 30 FPS and repeat over and over to yourself that this is the best gaming experience available. You won't be missed.

  • autogunner #56 3 years ago

    mr rubarb person,

    go back to your consoles and stop flaming a PC game post please, no one gives a damp toss about your views you little tart.

    for the price i reckon this game is well worth a go

  • IneptPercy #57 3 years ago

    I partly understand the idea of a PS3/360 will keep running all games as it should until its life ends as such.

    On the same point a PC will keep running games at the same standard for however long you want, you can keep turning graphics etc down on games until you don't find it acceptable anymore, but a game on a PC 2 years from now will stuill look the same as a new game now on the same PC, its just a case of recent games are running on high/maximium setting and 2 years from now you are using the same PC and runnign at medium which in tern is still better than the PS3/360.

    Basically if you build something better than a PS3/360 now the games will always look better, if you are always runnign at the top PC setting is another issue.

  • roz123 #58 3 years ago

    Rhubarb, im not going to ignore you (or stick a stick up my arse) cause im having to much fun reading your pitiful comments. Please dont go away, keep them coming.

    BTW one quote from one review of one game and a load of petty insults dosnt change the fact that a fairly moderate PC is superior graphically to the consoles.

  • WrongShui #59 3 years ago

    Leave the retarded troll alone Lou, you'll just upset yourself.

    This looks great, going to play it on my PC were it will run fine, yay.

  • marilena #60 3 years ago

    "technically it was developed *for* the 360 (using a PC), not 'on' it. That was the whole point."

    Well, how that works is that the game is programmed on a PC, of course, but it is always ran on 360. You compile it and then you copy it it on your 360 dev kit, where you run it. There's no moment when it is actually ran on a PC or a PC operating system. So, it is console code 100% even though the programmers use PCs to input the code.

  • UncleLou #61 3 years ago

    Leave the retarded troll alone Lou, you'll just upset yourself.

    Why do I imagine you in a white doctor's overall now, looking sternly over your glasses? ;)

    But I find the occasional troll strangely relaxing, I have to admit. The utter banality of the argument has something soothing.

  • mrsatan #62 3 years ago

    Okay, so I just beat this game and yes it does require a beast of a rig to play. I have a Phenom II with a 9800 gtx and a 9600 gt for physics and it ran smooth most of the time yet I still got some chugging.

    I have to disagree with the reviewer on the game being linear and that being bad. Call of Duty 4 is one of the most linear games I have ever seen and people love that, I don't see the problem with a survival horror game that is trying to tell a story being linear.

    The effects are sheer AMAZING. This would never run on a console, the walls drip with water and every bullet shot will ricochet in realistic fashion. It really is one hell of a technical marvel. It takes a monster to run at full, but it is worth it.

    I never had problems with the controls, either this fools computer was messed up or his mouse is a piece. It doesn't feel at all like he described in the review, if you want sluggish controls play Dead Space on PC, now that is sluggish.

    My complaints are as follows : Glitches= I encountered some weird stuff, but nothing game breaking. Repition= Hitting 30 switches over and over does get old. AI= The enemy AI is pretty stupid, though they are crackshots so that makes up for it. Plot= Maybe because the game is Russian and some things were lost in the translation, but man it was convoluted, sometimes I had no idea what was going on.

    Overall though it is a very interesting and different game and I reccommend it heartily to anyone with a rig powerful enough to run it. 7.5/10 in my book.
    Edited by 1 at 24/02/09 @ 22:21

  • UncleLou #63 3 years ago

    Okay, read this, think about it, and please stop the mindnumbing and utterly pointless discussion to and fro about it. It's zzz-ing me beyond compare

    Hm, to end this silly debate that has absolutely nothing to do with this game, a PC EXCLUSIVE, in the first place, you now open a completely different debate by arguing why console games are more profitable?

    Your intentions might be good, I am just not so sure about the execution.
    Edited by 1 at 24/02/09 @ 22:28

  • dryden555 #64 3 years ago

    the unfortunate truth is that the game is accurately reviewed by EG. There's genuine sparks of imagination and I hope this developer makes more games, but this game feels half-done and half-baked. The story is promising but they way they tell it in often dull flashbacks is annoying. YMMV

  • autogunner #65 3 years ago

    i just read the review again, and then the scoring policy, sound more like a 7 to me jim. rps article plzkthanks

    /ducks

  • avoozl #66 3 years ago

    The score fits with the review for me. It sounds a bit average, like it failed to be original enough and impress the reviewer. It's probably going to be awesome if you're new to gaming, but maybe not for people who have played too many games. I hope it wasn't marked down because of performance though.

    I think Eurogamer's scoring has been pretty silly recently, too. Mirror's Edge was average at best, and Saints Row 2 was an absolute piece of garbage. I just hope the reviews are sobering up again. The high scores should be reserved for really special games.

  • Meho #67 3 years ago

    As someone who played the Russian version a few months back, I'd like just to point out and underline several important facts:

    The game runs well on my PC which is decent but hardly top of the line. I have never spent more than 150 Euro on a graphics card and my current system (AMD 5000+ CPU, GeForce 9800 and 4 gigs of RAm on XP) runs the game very well at very high resolution and with all the bells and whistles on. The 'exploded dog' effect probably means the reviewer ran it on a decidedly weaker configuration... And, anyone interested in playing blockbuster FPS games on their PC already has a rig at home capable of running this game.

    The game is actually slow as it is: the walk and run speed is very slow, there are relatively few moving objects on the screen at any time so this helps with the nice look of the graphics but it never looks like motherfucking Quake match.

    As for the gameplay objections, well, I can not disagree. The developer has actually gone experimental here (their previous stuff was Vivisector etc.) and made a survival horror game with a first person viewpoint. Admittedly, it is not the best survival horror game out there. But it does feel refreshing with its serious approach to storytelling and setting design. Yes, combat is clunky and clumsy, like Condemned but on ice with 50 kg of heavy duty snow gear to slow you down. It's tense and ugly so it works, but it's never spectacular. Ditto the shooting.

    The flashback puzzles, then... Yes, some of them are awesome, but some of them are... just there. This is where I'd say the 'great idea, shame about the implementation' is really justified. But the game is, admittedly muc more about the atmosphere and story than about the mechanics. This is a flaw from the gaming standpoint, but from the experience standpoint, I can recommend this game to anyone who likes ugly, oppressive environments with some of that STALKER-like taste of sadness thrown in for good measure. It does work on that level, very well even. And, I don't know about the western version but the eastern one has voice acting in Russian that is simply awesome.
    Edited by 1 at 25/02/09 @ 12:10

  • Darren #68 3 years ago

    @mrsatan - "I never had problems with the controls, either this fools computer was messed up or his mouse is a piece. It doesn't feel at all like he described in the review, if you want sluggish controls play Dead Space on PC, now that is sluggish."

    Ah yes, it's very true that the game is locked at 30 fps when you enable v-sync regardless of the spec of your PC. This "bug" does contribute to the sluggish speed to refer to. However, if you disable v-sync in-game and force it through the graphics driver control panel then it locks it at 60 fps and the game feels much more responsive. The console versions are locked at 30 fps so played this way you get a better version with sharper, cleaner visuals. My PC runs this game at up to 150+ fps with v-sync disabled so there is really no excuse for locking the framerate at 30 fps on a PC.

    Cryostasis has now been sent from Play.com so I should get it Saturday in time for my long weekend of gaming! Can't wait! :D

  • Amnesia #69 3 years ago

    I got this on steam. Instantaneously it installs DirectX without asking even when I know my DirectX is fully updated. It then switches res on load to something like 800x600 when my default is 1920x . These are bad initial signs people - things like this got solved a....long...time....ago....

    Game starts cheaply like it's half finished. Fine ideas but it's not a monster spec engine requiring a big rig here (this PC is quite big enough running anything that's on the market) like the Farcry(s), FEAR2s etc of this world - no, to me it's clearly an engine that just isn't written well. It clunks along, height and perspective in the fps view is iffy like when crouching or reaching up for things. Maybe people might put this down to some stylisation and clearly the review is generous enough to just focus on the ideas but tbh I thought this was a game that's been pushed out significantly before completion and the engine isn't demanding, it's just a really quite knackered old dog.

  • mikeledevito #70 2 years ago

    Hello guys,

    I just finished this awesome game and I highly recommend it, especially to adventure, mystery fps gamers.
    U won`t regret it if you get in to the deepness of this game.
    OK as for the sys requirements I was runing this game very good on my Athlon II X2 240 2.8Ghz, 2 GB DDRAM, MSI HD 4850 R 640 MHz OC. So with this components I got this game working smoothly or I can even imagine how would have that worked on another 2 GB ram module, if I`ve been having 4 GB of my DDRAM. Though I was plying it on my SyncMaster 793df in 1024X768 at 85Hz, aspect ratio 5:4.
    Nevertheless, my clue of this game is that there are two fold stories inside of the game, one is in the book fragments that u r finding on your way through the North Wind Ice Breaker and other one is in the "real" gameplay. You have come here at this desolate area in the North pole and you encountered the deserted, abandon and wrecked ship but with the dead crew inside. You use ur mental potential to discover what did happen here and why the ship is here within these cruel circumstances of loneliness, icy weather and hostile environment that you are facing there. Monsters are the crew that attacks you but in the same time help you to find out why they are here in this forms and what did happen to them as well as to help themselves to change the past and give them a chance to make a detour of a deadly outcome that this ice breaker experienced. It`s about fixing the past flaws, man relationship, negative situations and bring all these to a proper way of a possible past that should ameliorate the future and fix all errors that happened to the ship along with the captain who was attacked for not obeying the "standard procedure". Thus it`s a quite nice fiction and imaginative concept we have here in this great game that gives you more than regular fps adventure template can give you. I find the mosin-nagant rifle, tokarev svt-40 semi-automatic rifle and PPSH 42 submachine very useful and very good for using in the game as it was created to use them very realistic unlike to those shooting mess games when you kill 1000 creatures or soldiers like rambo.

    Anyway the environment of icy and cold inhospitably of an area will bring you to feel like you are really there pacing out hopefully to find way out all the time and in the same time you will be taken on the very edge of an uncertain existence feeling that afflict you.

    As I said before I highly recommend this game and my evaluation is 9.8 of 10.

    Miki

    P.S. One more thing. I`ve notice some of the reviewers I read on other boards compare this game with the game Bioshock.
    Well, let me tell you that in my opinion Cryostasis is just firmly better, far more serious game than (due to all my respect to) Bioshock.
    Edited by 7 at 02/01/10 @ 19:54