I thought the first Crysis was great, but when the series went from open world to corridor shooters it kinda messed things up. The graphics of Crysis 3 are fantastic of course, but i HATE when we are told an uninteresting story with a boring "heroic" main character" that walks through corridors way to much, and I don't know where I actually am in the world, and I use the same weapons all the way through the game, and the music is totally BORING! I want some music in the background, not some melody that's the same as in every other high-production shooter not counting Halo.

I haven't finished the game quite yet. It's not rubbish. It's okay. But I just keep asking myself WHY can't crytek just give me 100% right from the start and all the way through. It's a 7 hour long game. They need to deliver max all the way through, I don't want to be sneaking around in some dark concrete buildings shooting with this rediculous week machine gun: prrrip, prrrip... Blow me away. But they really dont.. This is a basic FPS with great graphics.

yeah, so nobody really like the new scoring system here. But I was one who actually though it was okay at first, but now I am really starting to think that it's boring, predictable and uninteresting. I meen, we allready knew Starcraft 2 was going to get a 9,5. As well as Red Dead Redemption earlier this year. So a good high anticipated game will most likely get one of three grades: 8,5, 9, or 9,5. We knew Red Dead Redemption was arround 9,3-9,7 allready before the review came out, and than its easy to predict which score it's getting.

I think the old system was far more exciting. I'm really bored at looking at the scores Gamespot now is giving away. Yeah, they off course have a lot to say in their review which is interesting and which tells how good the game is. Still, I miss the excitement off a new game getting like 9,7 and standing as this years highest rated or whatever. Demon Souls got a 9/10. It was going to get 9 or 9,5 anyway, so it was a little bit surprising to see the score, but I still sit here thinking.. this game got a 9,2 or 9,3. Close to 9,5, but not close enough. I just can't seem to settle down with the new scores...

8.8 isn't even a must buy! Gamespot recommends Resistance high above Zelda, WHAT!!? It's shocking! I mean. Gamspot q: Do you really think I should drop out on Zelda? Should I use thousands of Norwegian kroner and buy that huge old fashioned anti-inovative Playstation 3 with the typical FPS Resistance: Fall of Man?

If you think so, you're insane. Just crap in your head!

I think Jeff gave a quite good review though saying all the things that where dissapointing, which are actually the same things that IGN said was dissapointing. I'll support Jeff and say that he is cool... but the score was just too low. Don't think Zelda when you review it, let it compete against other games... 8.8 that's not possible!