GameSpot chimes in on Crysis, but we don’t believe them
While November 16 has yet to arrive, GameSpot’s Jason Ocampo has already reviewed Crysis. His verdict? Pretty good.
Let me get this straight: Ocampo thinks Crysis’ multiplayer is awesome and the game isn’t out yet? So who did he play with? Fellow GameSpot journalists? This means their multiplayer session of Crysis is done either in the confines of their office over LAN, or in EA’s facilities—not under real-world conditions where the game is subject factors like lag, cheaters, and idiot teammates who shoot you for no reason.
Then how could Jason give it a score of 9.5?
Here’s another possibility: If the game was played in EA offices, then it implies there’s a special arrangement between GameSpot and EA. Maybe that’s why the score’s so high.
Jason Ocampo is the same guy who gave F.E.A.R. a score of 9.1 despite pointing out that the horror shooter’s environments are repetitive, the plot is disappointing, and that the multiplayer’s lasting power isn’t as deep as other multiplayer-centric shooters.
He also wrote one of the five worst gaming articles of 2005.
Now let me ask: Do you believe this guy?
Tags: Crysis, gamespot, jason_ocampo
4 opinions for GameSpot chimes in on Crysis, but we don’t believe them
Droniac
Nov 14, 2007 at 1:06 pm
He might have based his multiplayer opinions on the semi-public beta test as well? In any case, based on the demo, Crysis certainly looks to be more worthy of high scores than the totally overhyped Call of Duty 4. Now that’s a genuinely disappointing game right there…
Mike
Nov 15, 2007 at 12:22 am
Semi-public? That’s not real-world enough. Besides, given the guy’s background, which I’ve laid out for you, there really is room to doubt his word.
Or are you just cutting him some slack because he’s from GameSpot? ;)
Droniac
Nov 15, 2007 at 1:29 am
Well, a fairly large - random - segment of the community could enter the beta, heck I did… so I think it’s more than real-world enough. That said, his background may be horrid and there might be reason to doubt his word. Still, the demo was fantastic - and it certainly looks like the game deserves a lot more credit than CoD 4.
As for cutting him some slack because he’s from GameSpot. Hah, GameSpot sucks. I can’t recall any GameSpot review I truly agreed with - and this 9.5 seems a fair bit too high as well. Personally I didn’t much like the multiplayer either. On the other hand: GameSpot is a major gaming site, so they’re supposed to write crappy reviews. Just look at IGN and GameSpy, those guys are even worse, especially IGN.
Mike
Nov 15, 2007 at 2:16 am
Point taken on Crysis. Good call on GameSpot as well. I actually liked one GameSpot reviewer, but he already left. Ever heard of Greg Kasavin? His reviews are normally spot on.
IGN is much much worse. They’re probably owned by a game company in secret.
Seriously, the practice of gathering game journalists together at a game company’s office to review a game before release is quite common. Whatever for? So that reviews can be published on or before the release date.
The problem with this practice is that all the conditions are artificial. The PCs reviewers use are owned by the game company, so the hardware is optimized. The LAN is also set in ideal conditions so everything is going to be smooth (i.e. lag would be minimal, no crazy teammates, etc).
If the conditions are ideal, then naturally, the review would be high. THAT is my concern.
Take note, Droniac, using demos (or betas) for reviews isn’t a good practice. A demo is what it is: an incomplete product which shows us a mere portion of the game. What we see here in GameSpot is a review of the complete game.
Like other major sites, I’m sure GameSpot was able to get an advanced copy. While this happens often, it seems a bit too suspicious that the reviews went out almost simultaneously before the release date.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: