Talk:Cryostasis: Sleep of Reason

Release date

Can we get the EU/NA release date changed to "Q1 2009"? And also some confirmation that the game has actually been released in Russia? 124.169.186.112 (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Gamespot lists the release date as April 15 in NA, but Amazon lists it as April 28 and February 27 in Europe. Let's just go with April 15 and Feb. 27. As for the Russian release, it was out in December, and the 1C page lists it as "Out Now". Annihalith (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I found a post by a developer on the official forums stating Feb 27, but of course forums don't count as sources here. 124.169.186.112 (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Captain rammed the iceberg?

The article currently states that the ship was stuck in heavy ice, the first officer radioed HQ, the news devastated the captain, and he rammed the ship into an iceberg. Having just finished the game, this was definitely news to me.

Perhaps I missed some key event, but, from my memory of piecing together the bits and pieces the game gives you, it seemed to me that the first officer radioed HQ after the ship was locked with the iceberg, angry about the captain's ignoring his warnings (using the equipment the captain dubbed "the rod") and going through a dangerous portion anyway, and then further ignoring "the rod" when it suggested a large iceberg was in their path sooner than the captain believed it would be.

When the first officer gives the captain the telegraph regarding the ship's decommissioning, it's part of a conversation where he asks how long the repairs would take – the estimate is a week, and it's highly likely that these repairs are from hitting the iceberg. (Plus, HQ is not likely to decommission a ship for merely being stuck in ice.)

Assuming this is the correct version, I can see how someone might think that the captain crashed the ship on purpose. One of the multiple endings is the scene where the captain is locked in the control room desperately trying to break free of the iceberg. Once the captain is incapacitated, the first officer throws the ship into reverse, thereby aborting the attempt and causing a fire in the engine room. The correct resolution is to go to the captain's side once he's incapacitated, rather than assisting the first officer. Thus, the attempt continues, and succeeds. But unless you actually select that ending and repair the scene, it appears as though the captain has gone mad and is crashing the ship into the ice, and the first officer is trying to save it.

If there's no objections, I can go ahead and edit the article appropriately. Just wanted to make sure I didn't miss some key scene that made this all clear. — Wisq (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Tranter1718 beat me to it, and the article now stands in agreement with my understanding of the events, so no problems here. Thanks! — Wisq (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

End of plot

After reading some more people's opinions and rethinking my own ideas, I came to the conclusion that the ending must be open to interpretation. There are too many possibilities for us to know which is 100% accurate. For example, was the main character alive or dead for the duration of the game? Is he alive at the end? Is the crew actually alive at the end or are they ghosts? Despite what I may personally believe to be accurate, I do not think that any of these or other possibilities can be definitively ruled out very easily without a little bit of doubt lingering. Hence, I have edited the end of the plot summary to reflect a vague description plus open interpretation. I could not reconcile how to include the numerous possibilities without it turning into a long list or becoming biased in some way. If you disagree, please discuss here. Tranter1718 (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The beginning of the plot

It says the main character is a meteorologist who must investigate the ship. But what was the reason he came there in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scullyy (talk • contribs) 15:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In the game manual, it gives a brief introduction. This is the first of the two paragraphs: "The North Pole, 1981... The deathly silence of an icy kingdom. Meteorologist Alexander Nesterov is the last man to abandon the floating station Pole 21. He has received an urgent message from the mainland and must leave the vast Arctic on a comfortable ship which will pick him up at an appointed place at an appointed time. However, instead of a warm reception, the scientist encounters a real nightmare when he accidentally finds himself on board the atomic icebreaker, the North Wind, which for many years has been drifting in a land of eternal ice." Tranter1718 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Performance Issues

I deleted the part that dealt with performance issues. The reason is simple. The sole explanation for so-called performance issues was that the game doesn't support multiple cpu-cores. Two links were given as proof that lead to the game-developer's forums. Yet, none of the devs actually posted in the two threads. It's only filled with wild speculations. FACT: The game does utilize multiple cores. The stated threads even contain screenshots that prove it. Every gamer himself can check it. The CPU-usage might not max out all cores, but no one said that this has to be the case for multi-threaded applications.

Anyway, that part of the article was highly biased and contained nothing more than hearsay. The game is very hardware-dependent and relies more on GPU, than CPU-power. That's also why the specs in the manual only list a rather weak AMD 4200+ X2 as a CPU for recommended specs. The game's performance draining parts are rather the massive usage of shaders and physics, which can be easily seen, when set to a minimum, while other settings only have small effects on the performance. Also, the game's massive requirement of VRAM is a certain bottleneck for many systems. In my case, I experienced crashes, where the error message told me that my 896MB VRAM were not enough to store the 4 Megapixel textures in.

That being said, the performance issues rather are due to the fact that this game is a next generation title, that requires next generation hardware to run properly. Trying to blame bad coding in form of unthreaded code or other wild accusations for lack of proper hardware without any proof doesn't belong in a dictionary like wikipedia. There is no indicator for so-called "bad coding" anywhere. The game never had any stability issues. Even the patches only fixed minor issues and were rather used to add content and extended hardware support. 78.53.96.142 (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, Eastasia has never been at war with Oceania. 124.169.234.60 (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)