Is this the worst "professional " review of Crysis 2 ?

http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2011/04/sage-reviews-cry2/

I kind of liked this site, but this is a really bad review.

Even his intro comment before the review shows how biased he is.

I don't know if the intentional misspelling of "Crysis" is pretentious, stupid, or pretentiously stupid.

He seems to be mad at Crysis for being a PC exclusive too. :lol:...

They made the game from the ground up for consoles, and he thinks that consoles got a bad port or something.

Angry Joe still does good reviews though.

I just watched his review. He raises up valid points although I sense a little bias. It definitely isn't the worst professional review, or should I say professorial review ;)

I just watched his review. He raises up valid points although I sense a little bias. It definitely isn't the worst professional review, or should I say professorial review ;)

scar-hawk

I admire the cast for putting so much soul in their awful dialogue. But the dude that's preaching on the radios you find scattered around has the most annoying voice and delivery in the history of gaming, and that is a fact.

A little ignorant when he was talking about the PC but other then that I didn't see anything wrong with the review. Not that I fully agree with most of his views but just don't expect every review to say positive things about Crysis 2.

Ah, common. How much biased can you have to say

"Skip the mediocre campaign, but rent it for the MP"

I'm sorry, what? :o I know this guy,

I've visited the site, he never touched a gaming PC.

How did he get the " Pretty yet completely mediocre'" for Crysis. He never played it.

His bias and jealousy for Crysis was so big, it rubbed off on his Crysis 2 review. Fascinating.

It was bad...

What bothers me about Crysis 2 reviews is that all of the sudden everybody says they've played the first one, they clearly did not. Those comments, that it's all graphics no gameplay seens to be a myth that became true after so much repetition.

Goes to show to Crytek that what's inherently problematic with their game design is the lack of mental effort of players. Does not matter if they try, people will dismiss it entirely simply because they aren't willing to escape from CoD formula.

The fact he mocks it for being called Crysis before the review even starts just says it all really.

He clearly doesn't have the most basic grasp of what the point of Crysis is. It really looked to me like he has never played the first game... and surprise surprise, as confirmed in Showzer's post above, he hasn't! Which would be fine.... but if he didn't play Crysis, how exactly does that qualify him to say "Crysis looked great but it was rubbish". And then later go on to say "Crysis 2 isn't much better"!

The whole thing just reeks of bias. Awful review.

Well I don't think the review is the worst ever but I do agree with the rating even if I don't agree with the reasons he gave the rating. I personally do not think the game is as good as the original. They cut out some stuff I really enjoyed in the original SP campaign. There are less suit mechanics to play around with, namely the Maximum Strength. There is less time in vehicles. The playing field seems much more linear and less vast like the original. The hardest difficulty was too easy as well. It was a good game don't get me wrong but when you make a sequel to an amazing PC FPS you have to implement the stuff that made the first one so good.

I agree with most of his points. He brings up some good ones. and is right when he says it should be a rental.

Its his opinion...no matter how flawed you think it is, its still his opinion.

Well, some people just shouldn't be writing or gaming. This fellow is both.

I've worked for sites big and small and everything in between, and if I ever saw unprofessional critiquing I'd call people on it.

...though I think this guy is just a troll.

Its his opinion...no matter how flawed you think it is, its still his opinion.

JangoWuzHere

Screw you guys, I thought the game was awesome.

TBH, I only disagreed with him on his opinions on the first game, and the snippet above the video....

He was complaining about the way he was playing the game though, and he also says it was weird only being able to carry 2 weapons at once, as if he hasnt played an fps in the past 10 years.

Sages reviews are usually weak. For someone who is called the Sage he appears to know very little about gaming.

I really don't think this guy has ever played Crysis for any extensive period of time.

One of the big gripes I have of Crysis 2 is the passive character.. I normally don't care such things like for Half-Life.. But the things that happen to the character, the questions that have to be asked and the fact you impersonate some one else for a long time of the game is infuriating how passive the character is.. sSubZerOo

I noticed this as well.

I think the reason it works with Half-Life (and STALKER) is because those games are designed to make you feel like you're not playing a character, but that you actually are the character. Having a passive character is a fundamental feature in games like that. When it's obvious that you're playing a character, the illusion is shattered.

With Crysis, you're made very aware from the start that you're playing a character, because the game relies on throwing Hollywood-esque cutscenes and video sequences at you every 5 minutes... So why have Crytek pointlessly attempted to blur the lines between character and player by making him passive?

I stoped watching his review when he said that Crysis is all graphics and no gameplay.

Guess his review is based of forum trolls or console fanboys who haven't played it either.