Constructive Criticism And Opinions

[Andrei Mateescu]

I think some words of encouregement are in order, because, simply put, this is the kind of direction I whish future games will be taken to. Cryostasis is undoubtedly a love or hate game, usually this "love or hate" character is a sign of value - I would like you to ponder on that.

An introduction:
The purpose of this thread is to criticise the usual critics/critic platforms themselves, bearing in mind the fact that I was disappointed by the final words on many articles. I found myself disagreeing with many of the so called issues and I must admit I actually started to become something of a conspiracy theorist for a while. While I certainly understand subjectivity the problem was these "issues" were often just ...stupid and made no sense in the games' universe. Therefore I will try to touch the most often discussed aspects of Cryostasis.

For those without patience, the shortest version of what I am about to write here goes something like this: Cryostasis is the kind of game that gives hope in an industry where even "critics" seem to forget about substance, content, story and the way that story is told relevant to its respective interactive medium(i.e. a pc game).

It's an industry where high budget games have becomed as stupid and redundant as high budget Hollywood movies - bland story, stereotipical scenes, characters lacking complex development (when they try to create a more intricate human beeing it just falls unbeleviebly short, usually a simplistic good/evil or wrong/correct pattern is offered <<this is valid for the plot to>> ). After playing the game I was eager and curious to see how it was received by certain sites and magazines (magazines received it much better, probably because they are required to have a more serious opinion and to have some writing talent). The results were saddening, saddening because the average normal guy, trying to get a clear picture before buying a game, looks upon these judgements as valid information. If the making of such games is denounced then developers will cease from even trying.

Many "reviewers" offered opinions prior to finishing the game, often whining about the difficulty - a point upon which I will return shortly. You should try not to give a verdict until you finish, it's the basical requirement for a "verdict". A verdict is an act of judgement - you can't judge your subject matter if you don' t fully encompass it.


Cryostasis in general:
Cryostasis is, quite frankly, not meant to be a FPS or an adventure game, no matter how the publishers marketed it(that's their mistake). It's an experience and it is crafted as such, this the reason why observations regarding the inability to embody a FPS/adventure are inadequate. The first person perspective is a logical coice for a game that wants to be immersive.

Cons:
>Yes - it's clear that the game developers really hit the fan with the graphic engine, this problem is especially obvious because they bragged about it(the most common mistake made by developers). I would have gladly played it on 800X600 and shader model 2.0, fortunately this wasn't the case. And I certainly don't think the game is not playable, I have a less than mediocre rig, and through some tunning of the video card settings I was eventually able to play with resolutions higher than 1024 and full details and effects (depending on the scene, I noticed I could even run on 1280).
>It is true that they could have played a little more with the Mental Echo system, to disguise it as a not so linear one and to solve more complicated problems with it than just removig obstacles and minor treats.
>Cliping enemies - seeing how enemies appear out of nowhere in the middle of a room is rarely a good thing.

Pros:
>The level design was almost perfect. Why? - I must be an idiot, because the occasions where I could figure out in advance where the enemy will come from are relatively few(and I've been playing shooters nearly all my life now); it makes me ask why they were'nt able to finish the game as long as they were able to figure out all the oncoming enemies, are they sure about that lazy design?; -the so called boring spaces(which I did'nt find boring at all because of the guess what: design) look so much alike on the surface because surprise surprise: we're talking about a ship, an ice breaker in the middle of nowhere! there would be no sense in pretty sun rays, green (lame already) foliage and bright shiny colors, the purpose of the game is to put you in a claustrofobic space in order to experience the ship as the crew did, to induce a state o solitude and utter frustration(which I think would be normal in the portrayed environment); the spider demon(or whatever) introduction is brilliant.
>The difficulty. Why? - I'm sick and tired of games where I magically land upon tons of weapons sooner or later, and I single handedly manage somehow to beat 1 million enemies and save the world; I want to experience something more and in the most difficult manner possible, heck! it certainly should not be a fun walk in the park; when this is realised fighting just a few but intense enemies, when this is realised with extremely poor outdated weapons(which have perfect sense to be on the ship given the conditions) and when the enemies have a twisted and imaginative reason then, and only then, the "heroic" actions become almost believable in the game universe (almost).
>The Mental Echo ability.
>The story and the way the story is presented.
>The ending. It's a wonderfully crafted ending, both in terms of gameplay and meaning.
>Even the credits (they are practically the evidence of the mind f...ing abilities owned by the game designers). I loved that last sight and those last moments.

[thales100]

Nice post.

[Nike-it]

Good point of view, it is always very interesting to read such posts.
Thanks

[storky1941]

Still playing game & am finding it unusual & different as your post suggests

[Breach]

IMHO, Cryostasis falls short on a couple of critical requirements to become a great game (which means it's probably going to fall into oblivion by the end of the year):

What I liked:
+ Great story, one of the 'I'm not going to sleep until I finish it' kind of games
+ Deep game, lots of symbolism (above and beyond Silent Hill)
+ Lots of original approaches
+ Leaves you satisfied
+ Somewhat cool graphics, love what they did with the DX 10 ice / snow
+ In general a graet job given their budget

What I hated:
- Game performance
- Firearms combat, enemies AI, enemies spawning in plain sight, no damage randomization - all of the above is so 1995
- Your character moves so depressingly slow that you can completely forget about pacing (that's one piece of realism I'd gladly sacrifice)
- Load times! (Fallout 3 feels liek heaven now)
- No replay value (forget about BioShock, even the linear Dead Space has more replay value even if only due to char / weapons development)

Personally I'd give the game 7.5/10. Hopefully it does good in sales, I'd love to play a sequel.

[thales100]

Load times ? It certainly wasnt a big issue here.

[Nike-it]

Originally Posted by thales100

Load times ? It certainly wasnt a big issue here.

Fully agree with Thales100. Load times were not very long even on low computers.