[citation][nom]Agustus69[/nom]Well mrpijey, unlike you, I have expectations when companies have already set certain standards. I reinstalled and played the original Crysis a month before Crysis 2 just to get my fix in and that was just one, flat-out incredible game.Crysis 2 was clearly designed for consoles in mind. Yes, the artwork is top-notch. But then you have the blurring, the nondestructive environment, the non-saves, the crappy controls, the very linear gameplay, only two antagonists - similar looking aliens and bad guys, an extremely short single-player option (8 hours or less) and a COD multiplayer clone. Really..the most basic and simplistic shooter in recent memory.Now you're welcome to jump up and down, and gush over what you think is a masterpiece. But I shelled out $60 to pre-order what I thought was going to be another step forward in gaming from CryTek. Instead, it was one hella big step backwards, at least for PC gamers.Bototm line, I know when a turd has been dropped in my lap. Maybe you should take a second look yourself.[/citation]
I am not saying it's a masterpiece. I agree with you that the destructive environment is lacking, that it's linear etc. But there's a difference between "this game was not as good as the previous one" and "amagad this game sucks I will not kill myself out of shame for ever testing it"-style of replies here.
Yes, Crysis 2 feels more of a straight-to-console game, most console games feels dumbed down because of the simpler controls and lack of depth most console gamers want to put into a game. To me a game is something I can sink into, not something I play between dinner and dessert. So yes, Crysis 2 could have been a lot better if they had PC gamers in mind first. But it's far from as bad as a lot of people here say it is.
And it's far from a letdown to everyone as pkadair claims. I loved the first Crysis and I enjoyed Crysis 2 as well. I don't expect every game that falls into my lap to be a masterpiece of never before seen quality. So I treat it for what it is, an enjoyment for a few hours.
Granted, it can suck if you paid 60 bucks and didn't like the game, for this reason demos should be produced more often (and not these piece of crap multiplayer demos that doesn't say anything about the actual game). But there's no need to trashtalk the game as if it were the worst thing ever. No need to exaggerate the negative aspects of the game.
Was it made with consoles in mind and thus made simpler? Yes
Was PC-specific features such as DirectX 11 cut out to make it cheaper? Yes
Was it dumbed down with a linear story to make it more casual? Yes
Was features cut out to make it simpler to play with a gamepad? Yes
But the game still looks very nice, the engine is nicely optimized, it's not extremely buggy that it needs 3 patches before release (as with so many other games today) (I've noticed only two bugs so far, none serious). And apparently buyers do enjoy the game after all. Sales are good, and now they put the time into making a dx11 patch. Something they didn't have to do anyway since the game is finished anyway and they are making money. And they are not sellouts, they don't make games for charity, they make it as a business. Which means they have to cut corners sometimes for maximum profit too. It's not an easy balance. For example, I absolutely hated Dragon Age 2. Loved the first one, the second was to me just a cheapened and shallow console copy. However it's still not a bad game. It works, people enjoy it. I just don't like it. All respect to the devs tho. And maybe a possible sequel will make it great again.
All I ask is that people just chill and give some little more respect to the developers and people that work hard for these products. Hopefully they will learn from the mistakes and make it better the next time.