Though I do agree with what you said, I can not help but say this... Do you really think Killzone 3 or Uncharted 2 or 3 looks bad?? If you do then your blind, for what the console is they do look awesome. Though 100% agree with the fact that consoles are gaming cancer, releasing hardware that was outdated from the start was bad enough but putting a 10 year life cycle on top of that was the nail in the coffin. Then to add even more pain they try and lengthen the life cycle by releasing crappy buggy over priced useless motion controllers that are about as interesting as the small piece of dirt I have accumulated under my nail. Whilst I do admit that games can be "art" rather than just pure polygon pushing power, take Limbo for example, really great art style and great game too. Sometimes it does not have to be about a massive multi-million dollar budget or graphical prowess. All in all, I think Crysis 2 (on PC) still looks great, and at least this time more people can enjoy it. Because quite frankly its the best fps game I have played since Portal and I am only on the third level. A.I definitely needs a little more work though as a lot of the time enemies will do random things that just look retarded. But I am hoping that id and "Rage" will sort that out
Man, what saddens me is that Crysis went from being a widely respected game in the PC enthusiast community (not for it's gameplay, but for it's advanced graphic capabilities for its time), to just another ported console FPS. Crysis was synonymous with a high end system a few years back. It was a game that actually meant something to PC gaming despite the bland gameplay. Crysis 2 is just another wound in the bleeding heart of the PC gaming community.
Just made this. I don't remember who said "Maximum Port" here first, but they need some credit too. Lol crying some nanotears, yall like that? It's even tagged as a hostile target. That's deep.
. blizzard is a sellout company at the moment. players did not ask for wow to be dumbed down. and EVERY single person i know wants the old 40man raiding back. diablo 3? blizzard should build on top of diablo 2. not reinvent the genre and alienite alot of old fans. what they are currently doing with diablo 3 is horrible. and the real big disapointment was starcraft 2. a game that was in development since early 2004/2005, released in late 2010 and is by design made to squeeze out money with its "trilogy" bull****. paying full price for 3 seperate games basicly. the campaign is a joke. i finished the brutal campaign 1day after release. and i even had time to do my placement matches and get into the diamond league after release so i didnt have to worry playing against the noobs. back to the real issue > crysis 2 a trashy console port that is worse then the first, crytek is evercrying about piracy and how bad we all are. i hope that even console gamers will turn their backs on this ****ty product. if we face the facts, its not more then a couple hours of linear trashplay without anything new or genre redefining in it. and multiplayer? well i dont know but a console player playing an fps online. thats like trying to teach a newborn how to use a fork and a knife.
You should check out the WoW forums sometime. There is currently a mass exodus, people leaving from the game because they think it's currently too hard and unenjoyable after everyone complained Wrath was too easy, and demanding that the game be made easier. Blizz is refusing them for the most part. Blizz made the game super-casual in Wrath, and now those casuals are upset that they can't faceroll everything anymore. And every raiding guild I've ever been in and known would hate 40mans. It's always something that individuals like to nostalgia about if they were around back then, but anyone running a guild would likely commit suicide if they brought those back. Currently recruiting and keeping 25 people available every day is annoying enough, no one wants to go back to the days were half your raid AFK'd through Molten Core trash and you needed 8 geared tanks for Four Horsemen 40mNaxx.
I think it really depends on the server that your on. I know my server was a little pissed at how hard they made cata for a while there. I didnt like it either haha. It wasnt that it was hard for me, it was getting in a group of wrath noobs who never played BC and dont know how to CC worth a crap and a crappy tank and wiping every 10 seconds and then everyone blaming the healer (me). It just wasnt fun doing 1 heroic and it taking 3 hours mainly due to everyone leaving because we were wiping so much. Thats not fun. Blizzard was forced to fix this. I personally loved the fact that they made it hard again like BC but all the crappy players that started playing during wrath could not handle it very well....mabey if blizzard had decided to keep the top raid for the top guilds...... anyways, back on topic, the only thing that irritates me about crysis 2 was crytek claiming all this pc love crap and not even giving us drop down menu's for the graphics section. what kind of bull**** is that? it dosent seem like they really gave pc users anything extra tbh
StarCraft 2 took me 27 hours to beat. IF you did it in one day, you rushed like hell. MP entertained me for a long time. And you bitch we're getting 2 expansion, priced at expansion prices, that will add as much content as the original did? We're getting more for less, I've done the inflation prices before. This is cheaper than SC + BW was in 1998 with inflation of today. That's with all 3 games, it's cheaper, based on inflation, so no, they are not selling out, infact we're getting a deal.
Well I don't know about extras anymore, but the game itself when looked at as its' own title is a pretty decent game. There are a lot of gameplay elements to it that are really nice, such as the better AI, which is better than Crysis. What gets me is the hype that Crytek put on the table. I think this is what has upset most of the gaming community because we looked to Crytek to enhance what they started. The Dx9 version is good for a Dx9 game, but that isn't what we love about Crytek, we love that they pushed a relatively new API (dx10) and gave PC users back something that had become a little stale, new graphic innovation. There is nothing new to Dx9, it is old, and well charted. If they had in fact delayed untill Dx11 was finished and made one release instead of this patch I think we all would be crying a different tune. I have to believe a little bit that the Publisher had some factor in this incomplete release.
Don't know about you, but my memories of 2007/8 seem to be different to many people. I don't remember Crytek getting a standing ovation, nor do i remember people climbing over each other to buy the game. For every person who was saying it was amazing, there were many more calling it unoptimized trash. One person comments about buying it, many more say they would pirate it, as they wouldn't pay for a game they couldn't run. The there would be someone saying it was a great, enjoyable open world game, with the majority of the others calling it dull after the first hour or so, with a story you could print on a stamp. Crytek has taken a bashing more than any other developer i can think of, now it seems to be for the opposite reason as last time, they would of been better off not even having a PC version of the game, as i think a Cryengine3 benchmark would of been better received.
I'm part of the 'few' that really enjoyed Crysis and Warhead I found it a fun shooter but I like the open non linear gameplay. Some people like a shooter straight forward. Not a fan of the multiplayer though.
while youre right on some points( loads complaining they couldnt run it properly ), the story in Crysis 1 was thrash, also only the 1st 1/3rd of the game was a fun open sandbox, the 0 gravity bit was absolute junk and very badly thought out( i ran out of ammo on first playthrough and had to punch aliens for 2 hours to get past that bit lol ). The frozen bit was linear but the end was superb also, but you kept falling through the boat into emptiness. Crysis 1 on release was unfinished,seemed rushed and was extremely buggy at the end. They fixed up the falling through the boat though so that improved the game immensly. They bring it on themselves, that Yerli idiot telling everyone they can max it out on an E6400 with 7800GTX when nothing existed that would max it out, also advanced as it was it never took advantage of quad cores which were pretty common at that stage.
Well it wasn't my personal opinion off the game anyway, it was more my interpretation of what i read at the time. I actually enjoyed the first game, especially the first half, Warhead not so much, but i never had any hate for either game, but i played it over a year after release, so maybe all the bad press lowered my expectations. I agree they do bring it on themselves, they did promise the world with this, and they clearly lied about the original game and what sort of system it would need, think you've read the pdf on Crysis2 where he admits nothing in 2007 could max the original game:3eyes:
I really enjoyed the first game too( apart from the zero gravity bit ) but 1 thing that really annoyed me is the more you progressed through the game the more you had to arse around with the settings. I played the game with an E6400 + 8800GT OC'd in DX9, maxed with no AA @ 1680x1050, by the sno part i was on 25 FPS with the same setup and the bit on the boat i was at 15FPS average, i mean cmon, lol. I replayed it again with my 6970 and that final stage is absolutely stunning maxed. Yeah, lol i read that paper and them admitting it, all they had to say before the game was released is people should all run it on medium to get the best experience and that its so advanced they could max it out in a year or 2 and people would generally be happy( because we're all used to pretty much maxing games out on recommended settings except maybe no AA )
They could of said that, and while its something i like, "futureproofing" games tends to not go down well with many people. If Crysis 2 came out and even people with 2x6990 couldn't max it without lots of framedrops, i think we would of had just as much moaning, but for very different reasons:nerd:
I just want to see graphics like they showed in that video back in 2006, still not at that point yet.
lol, true, but my experience with PC gaming from the good old days is i could never afford the hardware to completely max out games until maybe 2 years after release. I would kind of like needing 2x6990's to max Crysis 2. Im already planning on another 6970 for BF3 and im hoping that wont be capable of maxing it. Its still fairly common, i mean any of the DX11 games usually run like crap but at least you can replay them a year or 2 afterwards and enjoy the new experience, maybe the patch will bring that, maybe it wont. What i did thing was weird is Crysis 2( the leak ) is the only DX9 game i cant play with 3 screens and get 40+FPS( it averages 25FPS )
