Cryostasis: From Russia, With An Appetite For Fast Hardware

Status
Not open for further replies.

werr20

Distinguished
Jun 12, 2009
5
0
18,510
0
i played this game and it's nice ! i have x3 720be(2,8ghz),4gb ram ddr2, 4850 512mb .on my pc it runs smooth
 

anamaniac

Distinguished
Jan 7, 2009
2,447
0
19,790
1
Penttium D 2.8GHz, 1gb ddr2 533, ATi 4670 (underclocked to hell because of computer stability recently).

I took the game all not too bad.
Looks and sounds amazing.

However, it couldn't really catch my attention long enough to develop an interest to delve even 30 minutes into the game.
 

darkpower45

Distinguished
Mar 16, 2009
35
0
18,530
0
soooo when did toms start to do game reviews? just a thought. The game looks pretty good though. The good think about the review is that it showed the performance on the low end systems. Good review even if its a game not hardware.
 

curnel_D

Distinguished
Jun 5, 2007
741
0
18,990
1
I'll be honest, I really didnt like the way the benchmark sections were done. Not because of poor information, but because of poor management of that information. At 3 in the morning, it's hard to figure out what's going on.

On the flip side, I do like the game reviews lately. Perhaps we can see a resurection of Toms Games, and perhaps even the illustrious Second Take? :D
 
G

Guest

Guest
You managed to benchmark with Nvidia cards exclusively, you keep reminding me why I almost never visit this site any more.
 

Andraxxus

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2009
312
0
18,780
0
If you have a good PC it might be an enjoyable experience but if you don't have one then stay away. I could not even run it but i've seen in on a good PC and it looks and sounds good.
 

falchard

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
2,360
0
19,790
4
I would like to see a game developer say. Screw nVidia, they keep holding back progress and use their developers network as a method to retain a user base. I am going to make a game that completely takes advantage of ATI hardware. From multi-processing units, to tesselation and ray tracing.
 
I think they mostly used nVidia because of PhysX, at least that was my take on it. They did use some ATI cards too.
Although this is not my kind of game, the review was written in a manner that I thought gave good information on how it might run on my system.
I'd like to see Second Take return as well, even though I don't recall it addressing hardware requirements the way this review did.
 

marraco

Distinguished
Jan 6, 2007
671
0
18,990
1
Is fantasy, not science fiction.

I played the game entirely, and I don't recommend it until a much needed patch is available.

The game really gets no benefit from PhysX (I buyed the game hoping to play a game physx capable).

And the performance is really poor. I was forced to play it on 1024x768, without any antialiasing, on a Geforce 8800 GT oc, and still got lots of glitches, and bad framerates.

The sound frequently ruined itself completely, and sometimes crashed.

Sometimes you get stuck on places, and finds yourself incapable of progressing. Then reload an older saved game, and finds that you got stuck because of a bug, instead a by design game. Sometimes a tube bends too vertically, and you cannot escape a room, or fix it.

The savegame system is broken. Sometimes you save a game, but are unable to reload it, or reload it and after a looong reload time, just finds that the small screenshot and filename does not match what was showed, and you loaded another file.

Although the game introduces some welcomed original innovations (common First Person Shooters are getting really repetitive lately), all the bugs it have make playing it a really painful experience. I had good hardware, but my experience was poor, and was no exception. I found lots of people with the same problems on internet (although others had slower hardware than me, and got no problems).

I strongly recommend to wait for a patch to be released, before acquiring the game.

After it, I played FEAR 2. It was so much optimized software, and played so smoothly, even on max settings, that I really enjoyed it.
 

theubersmurf

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2008
221
0
18,680
0
There are some glitches, and I think it could use some serious optimization. I ran it on an i7 920 (no overclock) with a single gtx 260, got playable framerates...but not stellar ones (with physx on, 1680x1050). I think the game is worth seeing...Sadly, what is sort supposed to be horror in the game sort of comes across as ludicrous IMO, but it is different, and worth seeing in that light (again IMO).
 

cinergy

Distinguished
May 22, 2009
251
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]asdasd777888[/nom]You managed to benchmark with Nvidia cards exclusively, you keep reminding me why I almost never visit this site any more.[/citation]

I'd rather prefer them not use ATI cards if they do nvidia tech related articles. But then again, I'd prefer them not to do nvidia tech related articles/promo in the beginning with. Physx should be pretty much covered already. Its a dying proprietary technology anyhow (OpenCL).
 

GAZZOO

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2006
22
0
18,510
0
I have been waiting for this game to come out for over a year now and what am i confronted with
It was made for nvidia well you know where nvidia can put it because I wont be buying it or and nvidia card even though the cards Im running could play the game I will boycot the game Thankyou nvidia for the one eyed view of trying to monopolize the gameing industry
Gazz
 

scooterlibby

Distinguished
Mar 18, 2008
195
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]darkpower45[/nom]soooo when did toms start to do game reviews? just a thought. [/citation]

When they completely eviscerated the Tom's Games site, which had been producing excellent game reviews for a while. I miss that site and wish it hadn't been turned into flash porn game hell. I don't mine the opining in this article at all!
 

hardwarekid9756

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2008
142
0
18,680
0
AMAZING!

Good objectivity in the opinion-part of the game.
Great depth to the analysis.

Phenomenal run-down of hardware. It gives the perfect idea of what you need and where to look. If Best of Media keeps their reviewing like this, there may be hope left!
 
I would have liked to have seen the low end PC2 with 2GB of Ram rather than 1GB. Most systems around that time had 2GB and the extra Ram would have influenced playability. Just a thought. Anyway it seems interesting enough that I may give this game a try.
 

Pei-chen

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2007
1,254
0
19,280
0
How much adventure/FPS games have fallen; from KOTOR to this dark alley piece of crap. Game should have good lighting and not "you-are-in-a-dark-room" lighting all the time.
 

starryman

Distinguished
Mar 9, 2009
335
0
18,780
0
Hey I love FPS but damn they are getting really boring. Someone needs to break the mold. Typical screen shot - scenery with some kind of smoke, water, or fire in the background and a pair of bloody hands, or a sword, or a crazy ax, or oversized gun with sights. Well it was cool years ago but can someone build something more interesting.

Also will some game manufacture get the balls and also build peripherals dedicated to their game? I'd spend $70-80 if a game is good and also comes with interesting controllers. Maybe foot operated buttons or additional USB attachment that has physical alerts.

Damn... come on... I have better ideas in this single post than EA and Valve in the last decade.
 

jerreece

Splendid
Haven't finished Cryostasis yet, but have played it. As a game, it's alright. I did stay up late a couple nights plugging away, but I wouldn't see it as a game to play twice.

Played it on my system and it was pretty smooth.

Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz, 680i LT SLI, 4GB XMS2 @ 800Mhz, Win 7 64bit(7100), WD Black Caviar Raid-0 (1TB x 2), MSI GTX 260 Core 216 (655Mhz). Asus 22" @ 1920 x 1080.
 

turboflame

Distinguished
Aug 6, 2006
1,046
0
19,290
2
The game is extremely slow paced and boring, lost interest about a quarter of the way through. It had some interesting ideas thrown in but overall the game is basically doom with better graphics in slow motion.

Also I only got around 10-30 fps regardless of the graphics settings (7750BE, 4GB DDR2 800, HD3850).
 

San Pedro

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2007
1,285
11
19,295
1
[citation][nom]Curnel_D[/nom]I'll be honest, I really didnt like the way the benchmark sections were done. Not because of poor information, but because of poor management of that information. At 3 in the morning, it's hard to figure out what's going on. On the flip side, I do like the game reviews lately. Perhaps we can see a resurection of Toms Games, and perhaps even the illustrious Second Take?[/citation]

I agree. I couldn't just go in and find out a 4870 compared to a 260 or 4850 with a glance at a graph.

I'm also wondering why this game? It's been out for a while, and all the reviews I read were only so-so.
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
0
Who wants to take the identity of some Communist dog?

Let's be real about Russians and their roles in games. They are to be conquered, and beaten down. Whether it be Napoleon in 1812, or the Germans of 1941, 1942, or 1943, the Russian bear is there to be conquered. Or later, cold war scenarios, or WW III, the whole purpose is to defeat Russians.

Who the Hell wants to play one? Once you've marched your panzers through Moscow, there's just no going back, especially after the damn T-34s raped you along the way.

I'd rather take the aliens in this one, it's just easier to identify with than a Russian.
 

Cunninglinguist

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2005
336
0
18,780
0
You Fail!
This review is fucking terrible. The graphs are indecipherable. a fourth grader could have done better work.
I've been reading toms for years, and folding for #40051 for almost as long.
I can (do) put up with the shitty, slow servers, but this content is worse than bad.
THIS will be the nail in Tom's coffin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY