» Fri Mar 06, 2009 6:56 am
I've been telling you guys that Crytek has forsaken PC gamers. What I got in return was people calling me a whiny baby. All the warning signs were there in plain sight and it took the final release for you guys to finally see it. I'm so glad I decided not to buy this game. I cannot believe they're charging an extra $10 for this mess, too. What a slap in the face.
Thank you Crytek for Far Cry, Crysis, and Crysis Warhead, but Crysis 2 is a stinker. Good luck with your new console fanbase. I just wish you didn't **** on your old fanbase so hard and so quickly.
The only thing that smells is the comment you made (and that of your fellow nerdrageurs) whining about the lack of PC exclusivity.
When was the last time a shooter was PC-exclusive?
If I'm not mistaken, it was the original Crysis - a game with real requirements so high, that most PCs of the day could not play it *at all* out of the box. Instead, they required serious upgrades (to CPU, GPU, or both). A game that lacked x64 support (and required two patches to get it right) at launch. A game that had its own issues with multi-GPU drivers (both CrossFire and SLI). And you want a repeat of that?
As a PC gamer that traces his *shooter roots* back to the original Doom, I must humbly, but emphatically say, "No thank you very much!"
I've never played a console-based shooter (in fact, I have never owned a console, of any generation). I just recently (in fact, within the past six months) got hardware that was capable of handling the *original Crysis*. Quite frankly, when word of Crysis 2 hit the Internet, I was worried that I would be left wanting yet again - by either console exclusivity (as had happened with Gears of War 2) or incredibly high hardware requirements (as in the original Crysis).
Fortunately, Crytek did neither.
The lack of DX11 (and hardware requirements otherwise identical to that of the original Crysis) means that average Joes and Janes (even those on laptops and notebooks) can play the game out of the chute. For the first time ever, we have an FPS playable on average PC hardware from a AAA developer! CoD: MW promised that, but didn't deliver. Not even close. MW2 was even more disappointment for the owner of the average PC.
Apparently, Crytek thought differently about the original Crysis than a lot of the haters - they thought it was a mistake locking out so much of the PC gaming audience. So, instead of repeating themselves, and going all-high-end again (and proving exactly nothing - the original Crysis, if not the original FarCry - showed that Crytek can certainly build a high-end FPS), Crytek went low. Not just to consoles, but to the middle-of-the-road PC. If anything, the consoles may have been an afterthought - the real meat of their audience remains PC gamers - just not the high-end PC gamer.
Why would Crytek do this?
Consider where Crytek is based - the EU. While those of us in North America have had it bad, the EU has had it worse. Much worse. The hardware upgrade market is in even worse shape in the EU than it is in North America, and it's in poor shape here.
Given that, maybe Crytek realized that creating another game following in Crysis' high-end footsteps would, instead of being welcomed, would be seen as a slap in the face of cash-strapped gamers?
Are the haters that divorced from economic reality?