No, in terms of gameplay choices Crysis is above a lot of games.

As of today, there are nearly 140 games with higher metascores than Crysis. Sadly I can't sort by user score on Metacritic, but critic reviews should do. Crysis is nothing special.

No, it's is number 52 and the 10th FPS. We're speaking about PC, i'm not comparing it to the **** consoles. Maybe it's nothing special for someone like you, but for the fans is something very special. Ok, you saw the games that have a bigger score than Crysis, now look how many games are there that have lower scores.
In my opinion user scores are not good because angry users like the Crysis haters give the game a much worse score than it deserves and that mades the users meta-score not correct. The critics score is more relevant, it does better represent a game and 91 is a correct score for Crysis.

But I can not clearly express my attitude to the Crytek, now it's another company, so much bigger and, I hope, so much better than ever.

Crysis 1 was mediocre, but it doesn't matter at all.

IMHO.

Scores pretty well, as far as i understand Metacritic: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/crysis

56 positive critic reviews, 0 mixed, 0 negative. Scores 91 out of 100. According to the "Current PC Games List", the only game that beats that score of 91 is Starcraft II, with 93.

But hey, at the end of the day, it's what YOU like and no one can argue against your own opinions I just hope and anticipate for Crysis 2 to blow even more people's minds than the original!

According to the "Current PC Games List", the only game that beats that score of 91 is Starcraft II, with 93.

But, StarCraft 2 doesn't have technologies like CryEngine 2. Right?

First part of game(in jungle against korean army) is much better than ending, with flying alien jellyfish - cool main designer's solution. LoL. Jungle theme is exploited in Far Cry, for example... No, I don't wanna be critic on fan site of this franchise, but my eyes focused at new game, at posibilities to finish that game really great, similar to what I expected from a Crysis 1 - killer fps.

Scores pretty well, as far as i understand Metacritic: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/crysis

56 positive critic reviews, 0 mixed, 0 negative. Scores 91 out of 100. According to the "Current PC Games List", the only game that beats that score of 91 is Starcraft II, with 93.

I'm not arguing that it scored pretty well, I agree there. The problem is that a lot of games score higher. 90+ is a good game, yes, but a 95+ is what I'd class as something special: a game that exceeded expectations and produced something innovative that's a delight to play, and pretty much flawless.

(What list are you looking at, out of curiosity? I can't find a list where only SC2 beats it anywhere. Closest I can get is SC2 + ME2 for 2010 games.)

No, it's is number 52 and the 10th FPS. We're speaking about PC, i'm not comparing it to the **** consoles. Maybe it's nothing special for someone like you, but for the fans is something very special. Ok, you saw the games that have a bigger score than Crysis, now look how many games are there that have lower scores.
In my opinion user scores are not good because angry users like the Crysis haters give the game a much worse score than it deserves and that mades the users meta-score not correct. The critics score is more relevant, it does better represent a game and 91 is a correct score for Crysis.

Being above the steaming piles of garbage doesn't make something a good game. It just doesn't make it a rubbish game. But seeing as you think that critics who review console games well are all idiots, you can't uphold the same critics as proof that Crysis is great. As for it being special "for the fans", that is utterly meaningless. Every game is special to someone, whether it's the devs, the majority of players or a tiny minority. I'm not particularly bothered if someone thinks Iron Man is a great PC game, because the majority think otherwise. At the end of the day, it's the majority that matters to sales.