@x-2tha-z Judging by the fact that you're calling the PC players "PC Guys" tells me that you're a Console guy, so, here's the deal, it was a step backwards for YOU, because consoles aren't moduler and upgradeable, they're throw-away and replaceable. The thing about being a PC Gamer (Although, I have always ALSO been a console gamer, and still am, and I LOVE my PS3, of which I bought Crysis 2 for because I knew this was going to happen) is that when a game comes out and makes you upgrade your rig, or pushes your rig to the max, that's both considered a good thing and a challenge. I have an i7, a 575 NVidia card, and 8GB of RAM (Which, now a days, processor aside, is pretty modest) because I WANT games that are going to use the tech I have. I like that companies like ID and Epic create engines that are going to push things. The last thing the PC community does is complain about high system requirements, that's why we went PC. Poor optimization and programming is another story.
I think the "Dumbing Down" of the Engine is a dumb argument. This gen console can run Crysis 1. IMHO, if Crytek really wanted to make money off of the console market, they should have slightly upgraded the graphics and fixed the end of the game bugs (the falling apart of the world and collision problems.) Crysis 1 works with controllers, I toyed with a 360 controller to play part of the game on my laptop, was acceptable. Crysis 1 is the halmark of "This Generation" FPS. It would have also allowed them to make cash off of the console market, and work on what Crysis 2 should have been... the game to get other developers to realize what NextGen would be capable of. Instead, we get a version of Crysis that falls alarmingly close to the black hole that is The Current Gen of FPS... CoDclones. (Edited as I made the false assumption that FarCry 2 was a Crytek game and built on the CryEngine 2. Still, I think this gen can still handle CE2)
It's a consolte win, but it's a sad day for the PC Gamer. We enjoyed a much higher standard, but as the console tech is catching up to PC tech, developers are plateauing out. This really shows it. But, I don't think people should discount this game. The developers clearly put a lot of love into it, and it shows. The engine does look fantastic, but even Cryengine 3 should be marketted for what it truly is- a cross platorm engine. An engine that doesnt push technology to the wall, and is more of a slightly stronger brother to Cryengine 2 and not a full on generational leap. I almost think of it is Cryengine 2.5. When I first heard of Crysis 2, I salivated on what I thought would be destructability closer to what DICE is doing with Frostbyte for BF3. Look at Unreal, the Unreal Engine 2 to 3 was huge, Frostbyte 1 to 2, massive steps. Granted, when Cryengine first came out, it was OMFG, and we were just hoping for that again, and in that regard, it is a let down... but, Crysis 2 is still a pretty great game, its just technology and developers are slowing down.
By console standards, the game is superior to almost every FPS on PS3 and 360, and is definately the prettiest. The story is alright, although I feel the entire Alcatraz/Prophet fiasco went on a little long (Dude, seriously, just be like, hey, I'm not Prophet. NBD) I also really enjoyed the sound track and sound effects. However, if you compare it to Crysis 1 and claim it to be its successor, I think it definately lets down. The graphics are only marginally better, and that's speculative. The water was better in Crysis 1, and the lighting was slightly better (at least if you looked at the sun and stuff) in Warhead. The way they have the light "wash" over there definately added to it. Losing the freedom of the original game was a major hit, I felt "slower" than I did when in Maximum Speed on Crysis 1, and I also felt much weaker versus Maximum strength. Where did my fists go? AI is probably the worst aspect of the game, often times these superior aliens would just stare at a wall or glitch into objects- collision detection was good, AI detection was not. However, compared to Killzone 3 or Halo or any other FPS on consoles, definately superior. Compared to Crysis 1, though, it breaks no ground.
IMO it takes a little more than a console to get laid, like not being a f2g. As for chicks liking Wii or whatever, it does have easy accessability and stuff, but the novelty wears off. I bought my GF a Wii for Christmas 3 years ago, she traded it in for a PS3 last year. Even girls know that Wii is garbage. I've seen more girls more interested in Fallout and Red Dead Redemption than Bowling and Water Cup on Wii. Just saying. And Rock Band definately got more work done than Wii, Wii never paved the road towards a 3 person party.
@FlameBeast4000 A couple years ago I bought a Nintendo Wii for my girlfriend... a year and a half later, she traded it in towards a PS3 slim after realizing she'll never get anything on par with Fallout or Red Dead Redemption.
Wii shouldnt count as a current generation system. It's LastGen.5, just like Nintendo's new console will be ThisGen.5. It's cheap as heck and had an interesting new gimick, which, honestly, fails imo. It works in some regards, but Extraction would have been better with a real lightgun (and more accurately so) and Mario Galaxy had me yearning for a traditional control scheme. The gimick is great for family games, group oriented games, and educational games, but as for gamer games, they're terrible (this goes for Kinect and Move, as well) The Wii is just a PS2 with motion controls and no third party support. The Project Cafe will just be an XBox 380 or a Playstation 3.2 I'm not hating, I'm just not excited and don't expect to be impressed.
Oh, Blizzard, how far from grace you've fallen. Getting purchased by Activmoney, rehashing SC2 and trying to act like it's a new game, destroying everything I once loved about Warcraft and squatting on all the lore from the first 2 games, and scrapping Ghost (I'm still bitter)
Draxargh's comments