Crytek screwed the PC Community

[Vindekarr]

If I sound scathing it's because IIm moderately offended.

 

I am not offended by that you disagree-if you've got the guts to stand by your opinion despite strong counterarguments you are either laudibly strong of character or quite possibly deaf. What offends me is that people here are showing such little ability to express. It's not the opinions I take fault with, it's that the opinions comes across as poorly researched and coming from a position of extreme prebias, and ignorance. Give me a legitimate problem, a reason it's rubbish, or even a purely subjective gut feeling, and I'll respect your opinion because that would be a legitimate opinion worthy of sharing. But if you are just going to sit there and shout half baked quotes about COD, which is chalk to Crysis' cheese, then no, that's not a properly voiced opinion. Im sorry but you are big boys (and girls) you need to act like them. Dont just shout unless you've got a reason to.

 

As for you Marthos, you atleast make a valid point, it's got console cooties all over it. But again, is that even a bad thing? in the early days a PC and a Console game were hugely diferent, but nowadays PC exclusives are a rare thing, and most of the games people go on about here started their life as console games and were ported to PC. COD's the only one mentioned here that's not 100% gamepad compatible, and that's because of code flaws, not design. It is in all ways, a console port. Check the ~ if you dont believe me.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Vindekarr

[Halororor]

Well, all I'm saying is I feel sorry for everybody whining about 'consolization' (a crappy word some basement dweller made up), because it's going to start happening all the more often. Console ports are the way of the future, so long as the state of piracy in the PC gaming market stays the same.

[Vindekarr]

Sad but true mate.

 

With Crysis alone Crytek lost 2 million $ in the first few months to piracy alone. Some sources put the total loss due to piracy to be something like 36% of Crytek's annual porfits. And that's just Crytek. There was a major clash about it this time last year, a few owned studios refused to make more games for PC because they were just so sick of losing the amount they were to pirates. Im not accusing you of being a pirate, but there are so damn many pirates out there now that making games for PC gets less profitable every year. Crysis 2 had already had more than a million dollars worth of games stolen and pirate a month before launch on PC compared to roughly 5,000 worth for consoles. During the publisher-dev clash in 2010, Crytek were one of the most vocal, second to other eurpean groups such as regionalised Ubisoft divisions and Vivendi.

 

And I cant blame them, if people stole 36% of my annual proft I wouldnt much want to sell to them. At the moment the PC games industry is shrinking. Dramaticaly, and you ask any dev, and the first thing they say is piracy. It's hardly the only problem with the PC games industry, but according to the big brands, it's what's going to slowly kill it. In Crysis' case it's particularly relavent since Cervat Yerli refused to launch the game for PC until EA demanded it, stating ingraititude, piracy, and hacking aswell as stating a likely move of all Crytek's future product to console, namely Xbox 360.

[Dark0ne]

I'm miffed because Crysis was a revolutionary FPS. Revolutionary not only in graphics but because they gave you an island, with a map marker on it, and said "complete this mission how you like". Crysis 2 is nothing more than a standard FPS with no better gameplay than Bad Company 2 (that has far superior MP to Crysis 2) or COD. The graphics are nothing to write home about and the singleplayer is boring to me. Very boring.

 

I'm miffed because Crysis set a new bar for me in FPS games, and Crysis 2 has lowered that bar despite being 3 and half years newer than the original. When sequels go backwards, not forwards, it annoys me.

[JimboUK]

Well, all I'm saying is I feel sorry for everybody whining about 'consolization' (a crappy word some basement dweller made up), because it's going to start happening all the more often. Console ports are the way of the future, so long as the state of piracy in the PC gaming market stays the same.

 

If consolisation was only about the graphics it wouldn't be so bad but it's also about dumbing down, developers see console gamers as dribbling halfwits and the games reflect that. It's a shame because in reality the only difference between console and PC gamers is the choice of hardware. Crysis 2 is a great example of it, all you do is go from point A to point B following the on screen prompts, the game even tells you what mode to put the suit in. At no point is the player required to think, it's just as mindless as COD.

[TheReverendTholomewPlague]

It's kinda true jim. Many console gamers (not all) are casual gamers seeking instant gratification from games. Hence, easier and simpler games.

 

Granted, some console gamers either can't afford PC hardware, don't have the patience that PC gaming requires or simply prefer consoles.

Edited April 9, 2011 by TheReverendTholomewPlague

[antonkr]

You really want me to respond to that Anton?

 

Graphics: Best in genre on console. period.

Crysis set a new standard for me, and Crysis 2 lowered it because it was made for consoles.

 

Gameplay: Unusual, doesnt play like other games in class, excellent MP balance, excellent SP.

First Crysis introduced very many new elements, Crysis 2 for me did not, as many other games already have those features. It felt like the enviornment was much more interactive. I understand that now its New York but still. I remember swimming off shore and being killed by a shark, or throwing a trash can at my enemy. Much more possabilites that can be quite amusing.

 

Reliability: Owned it for three weeks, not one crash, freeze, or even slowdown, runs fine on my machine on maximum settings, is MUCH prettier than previous game when on full max settings.

Hmm for me it looked like a usual fps shooter graphics. Crysis 1 was amazing with graphics. EVERYTHING was great on even medium settings that I played on. Hell on the aircraft carrier you could see the words that were on the monitors. Textures were simply amazing. Crysis 2 didn't improve on them, it was just like... a regular FPS

Controls: Superlative.

Can't argue with that.

 

Technology: An incredible achievment using outdated tech, only Dx9 but able to take it to Dx10 games with relative ease, very machine friendly provided you arent using an SLI rig and lets face it most of us dont.

It still felt very simplified when looking at it vs first Crysis.

 

Then go play your Call Of Duty Anton. By all means, we arent trying to make you like Crysis 2, but how about you show us a little respect and let us like Crysis 2? A wise man can like one game without having to bash on all others.

I used Call of Duty as an example of a usual FPS shooter, and in my opinion they are about the same. However I fell that Bad Company 2 is superior to both of them. For some reason still no game has beat Bad Company 2's multiplayer experience for me so far. Maybe besides the ArmA 2 games, but thats a different story. I am not trying to bash you for playing it or anything I just feel like the game was too rushed and release for major consoles was a big downside. We both know that what a modern pc can run is far superior to what a console can run. Think of ArmA 3 made for a console.

Edited April 9, 2011 by antonkr

[Halororor]

If consolisation was only about the graphics it wouldn't be so bad but it's also about dumbing down, developers see console gamers as dribbling halfwits and the games reflect that. It's a shame because in reality the only difference between console and PC gamers is the choice of hardware. Crysis 2 is a great example of it, all you do is go from point A to point B following the on screen prompts, the game even tells you what mode to put the suit in. At no point is the player required to think, it's just as mindless as COD.

 

That's the thing, developers don't see it that way. Console hardware limits what can effectively be done within a game. That's why console games are often simpler than PC games, because micromanagement doesn't work well on consoles. That's also why there are so many RTS games on PC and few on console, because it's not as easy managing armies/equipment/characters on a controller that is limited to the amount of buttons they contain, as well as the primary methods of control not being quite as easy to use as a mouse. It's not about the graphics, it's about what gamers can and cannot do with the limited hardware of the consoles as well. I certainly wouldn't want to have to micromanage all my abilities in Crysis 2 by having to stand still and open a wheel to select which ability I want. I'd much rather just press a single button and keep playing.

 

As for the open-endedness of Crysis mentioned earlier in the thread, Crysis wasn't entirely open ended at all. It gave you freedom in how to approach certain stuations, but pretty much funnelled you through just as many sections. There was no open ended island, just sections of island you could explore at a time, and if that's seen as open ended, then it's not revolutionary, as Far Cry did it before Crysis.

 

Edit: That said, however, I'm not implying that Crysis was linear, just that it wasn't as non-linear as some would think.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Halororor

[Vindekarr]

And am I the only one who remembers the Aliens?

 

That wasnt any sort of open ended island, it was, by the end, a series of fissures and corridors. And Warhead was even worse!

[JimboUK]

That's the thing, developers don't see it that way. Console hardware limits what can effectively be done within a game. That's why console games are often simpler than PC games, because micromanagement doesn't work well on consoles. That's also why there are so many RTS games on PC and few on console, because it's not as easy managing armies/equipment/characters on a controller that is limited to the amount of buttons they contain, as well as the primary methods of control not being quite as easy to use as a mouse. It's not about the graphics, it's about what gamers can and cannot do with the limited hardware of the consoles as well. I certainly wouldn't want to have to micromanage all my abilities in Crysis 2 by having to stand still and open a wheel to select which ability I want. I'd much rather just press a single button and keep playing.

 

As for the open-endedness of Crysis mentioned earlier in the thread, Crysis wasn't entirely open ended at all. It gave you freedom in how to approach certain stuations, but pretty much funnelled you through just as many sections. There was no open ended island, just sections of island you could explore at a time, and if that's seen as open ended, then it's not revolutionary, as Far Cry did it before Crysis.

 

Edit: That said, however, I'm not implying that Crysis was linear, just that it wasn't as non-linear as some would think

 

There are limitations but they are not an excuse for dumbing down, open worlds can be done easily on consoles so there is no excuse for still churning out tunnelware as they are today. Crysis 2 for example doesn't have any more depth than Doom did, you stay in the tunnel and shoot everything in front of you. It's not the technology thats the problem, it's a lack of creativity and pandering to children with a limited attention span.