Cryostasis Comments by Jim Rossignol

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:
http://www.thewitcher.com/index.php

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

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.

@ 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

Mid last year I was ready to give up on the PC as a gaming platform too, it took me months to get UT3 working (eventually tracked it to a fault with my graphics card AND with an IDE cable). Then I had problems running STALKER and Outrun 2006 thanks to fecking SecuROM screwing things up. My TV can only manage 720p anyway so big ass PC resolutions are out of the window so that makes console gaming a lot more attractive in most cases.

However I went ahead and bought Fallout 3 for the PC and after some teething troubles (yes again, this time it was my power supply) I have to say I'm enjoying it a lot more than I did Oblivion on the 360 (apart from the bloody awful pip boy green map nonsense) just by virtue of the keyboard/mouse setup. It does look a little prettier too. I'm also a big fan of the Xfire service on the PC which lets you record video and take screenshots of most PC games and post them to your Xfire page, all for free too.

So I guess PC gaming does still have some advantages but since the dawn of hi-def consoles its not the massive step up in quality it once was especially considering all the other things PC gamers have to put up with.

ok let's settle this PC vs. console argument once and for all. I'm tired of reading about it.

- PC is obviously superior in speed to consoles when buying your gear smart, no buts, this is a fact. (I own a ps3 as well, I can tell the difference). If a PC doesn't run GTA 4 as smooth as a ps3 on a similar resolution, it's a bad port. Why bad ports?

Big budget titles do not get the same attention as console titles due to the following reasons:

1. piracy (it annoys the hell out of devs if +/- 80% of people playing your game, download it from torrents without paying you. The counter arguments aren't interesting, the devs are still pissed of.

2. the pletoria of different hardware configurations that make programming games for a pc a real pain in the ass (instead of a much more predictable, sometimes more evolutionary and ultimately easier closed system)

3. the pletoria of different pc's of different users, that make programming games for a pc a real pain in the ass (implementing scalability, having to think about all the DELL pc's etc. And oooh beware of the agressive forumnerds if you make a game ahead of its time like crysis.)

4. PC gamers buy less games (see: WoW, Diablo 2, C&C, quake, unreal, cs starcraft etc etc etc. a lot of pc games take much longer to complete console games on average, also online is played much more on pc. hence, so PC people buy less.)

5. PC gamers pay less for games, 40 euros vs 60 euros first week, vs 10 euros vs 30 euros 12 months after.
------------------------------------
6. PC games just sell less than their console counterparts.

conclusion: PC games are generally less profitable for most big releases.

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

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.

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.

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

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

/ducks

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.

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.

@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

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.

I'm really enjoying it anyway....