Oh and Crytek rushed the patch out to satisfy all these whiners. And most weren't saying to just let them know, they we're threatening crytek with lawsuits, selling their game, killing their families so on and so forth...

A brand new car getting recalled on day 1 is a big deal. What planet do you live on?

The quality of workmanship of products has gone down considerably overtime. While it is nothing to lose your temper over, a button falling off of a brand new shirt just shows how little many industries care about quality anymore. Mostly because to alot of us, a new shirt doesn't cost much. But when you pay $60 bucks for something that doesn't work, the annoyance level goes up.

Yes, humans are not perfect. That is why you are supposed to test the product first to see if it works like it's supposed to. If it doesn't, then it needs to be fixed before you sell it.

I agree, people are getting out of control on these boards and should be civil about bringing problems to the attention of the developers. But calling people names because they refuse to settle for this trend of selling inferior quality goods is immature.

Sorry some people aren't willing to let inferior workmanship slide.

Let me re-phrase that. Brand new car gets recalled for a random trunk release switch intermittently functioning.
Point is, its minor.

The lag is not extreme to the point of not playable. People still play, people still, get kills, people still win, people still enjoy it.

Inferior workmanship? Thats a bit extreme. Game looks beautiful. Details of visuals are stunning. Features, plots, execution of the game are tastefully original. Features are sharp.

Why dont you donate 3 million Euros to Crytek to help them to eliminate any potential financial budgets that can hinder any development bottlenecks? Especially on a cross platform release.

Test? You think financials for any company can shell out the necessary funds to accommodate such a large test phase? 3 platforms. 3 sets of different coding. Server time. Hosting time. Man hours. Deadlines. Think about the big picture. If this was a 1 platform exclusive, I'm sure it would be much better on the initial release. Proof exists with Crysis 1 released on the PC.

You think EA, Sony, or Microsoft aided them in development funds? No. Crytek had to pay them. Publishing costs to EA, license fee to Sony, license fee to Microsoft.

Is it perfect? No.
Is it still enjoyable? Yes.
Can it be improved? Yes.

I swear, some people don't know how read. I never said Halo started the FPS industry, I said it redefined it. Of course I know wolfenstien and doom started it all, goldeneye 64 brought anolog control to consoles. But Halo brought the system we're using now like p2p servers and the way the controls are set up among other things. Just don't be a hater because any smart person would know what I'm talking about and these are straight up facts, not an opinion. As for the other poster saying COD has more strategy than this game or any other game, are you on crack. COD is the very definition of arcadey run & gun. Thiers nothing militaristic about this game except for the fake sounding guns and uniforms. In Crysis you have to manage your energy while keeping a look out for the enemy as your teammate backs you up. If I had to choose for a realistic strategic military shooter, I would choose the battlefield games. COD IS ARCADEY RUN & GUN. CRYSIS 2 IS SOMETHING NEW, FUN, AND DIFFERENT. and that is what sets it apart from everything else. It takes a little bit from every franchise and succeeds, and there's nothing wrong with that. Hey if COD can take ideas from Halo then why can't crysis take ideas from COD.


And COD is ridiculously linear

Why dont you donate 3 million Euros to Crytek or purchase a few thousand shares of stock to help them to eliminate any potential financial budgets that can hinder any development bottlenecks? Especially on a cross platform release.

Test? You think financials for any company can shell out the necessary funds to accommodate such a large test phase? 3 platforms. 3 sets of different coding. Server time. Hosting time. Man hours. Deadlines. Think about the big picture. If this was a 1 platform exclusive, I'm sure it would be much better on the initial release. Proof exists with Crysis 1 released on the PC.

Or they can develop a game that is within their means.

Where is your proof that EA didn't give Crytek any funds? I am not saying you are wrong. I am just saying that without proof you are just pulling that out of your ass as far as I am concerned.

And to the people saying the patch was rushed. Patches take a while to make, then awhile to test, then Sony and Microsoft need to approve it before it can go live. Based on that, this patch was made BEFORE the game was released. No one on this forum got Crytek to rush into doing jack.

Or they can develop a game that is within their means.

Where is your proof that EA didn't give Crytek any funds? I am not saying you are wrong. I am just saying that without proof you are just pulling that out of your ass as far as I am concerned.


Their means? Wow. Play the original Crysis. Respectfully tho, the PS3 and Xbox dont have what it takes compared to how Crytek can make the game. Their means, tho, did get a high resource demanding game successfully onto the consoles where most thought is was impossible. Play Crysis 1 on a powerful PC and you'll think twice. This game looks and feels damn good on these consoles


EA did not develop this game, they published it and distributed it. So with publishing there is publishing costs, advertising costs, distribution costs. They helped get the game out.

http://investor.ea.com/financials.cfm#byGen

Or they can develop a game that is within their means.

Where is your proof that EA didn't give Crytek any funds? I am not saying you are wrong. I am just saying that without proof you are just pulling that out of your ass as far as I am concerned.


Their means? Wow. Play the original Crysis. Respectfully tho, the PS3 and Xbox dont have what it takes compared to how Crytek can make the game. Their means, tho, did get a high resource demanding game successfully onto the consoles where most thought is was impossible. Play Crysis 1 on a powerful PC and you'll think twice. This game looks and feels damn good on these consoles


EA did not develop this game, they published it and distributed it. So with publishing there is publishing costs, advertising costs, distribution costs. They helped get the game out.

http://investor.ea.com/financials.cfm#byGen

I did play the original Crysis, and I did so on a good gaming PC. That does not make any of my points less valid.

I never said the game doesn't look or feel good on the consoles. It just has too many big bugs. If they didn't have enough time to get everything working right on a multiplatform release, then they should not have made a multiplatform game. Or if they really wanted to move on consoles (which they didn't, find any pre-2008 Cevat interview and see that he has done a 180) they could have come up with a new IP for consoles that was not as resource-demanding and left Crysis 2 on PC. It is clear that trying to make Crysis 2 multiplatform was outside of their means from a labor and financial standpoint. Granted, companies do gamble and put all or nothing into something big. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose, and sometimes losing makes companies go out of business. But that is free market economics.

And finally, the relationship between developer and publisher varies from company to company. Some developers are independent and the publisher simply handles the advertising, manufacture and logisitics of releasing the game. Other developers are flat out owned by a publisher, like DICE is owned by EA and Infinity Ward is owned by Activision. And then there are publishers in the middle who are independent but sign agreements with specific publishers (and Sony and Microsoft are both in the publishing business) to make a game only for them and in exchange, they give the developer money and resources with which to make it.

Crytek is a private company and independent.

And I do agree with you on that multiplatform point. They might have took on more than what they expected. I was shocked when I saw the 2nd Crysis coming to the consoles. I remember too when they said they were gonna be a PC only developer. But in the end, the console version of the game did come out gorgeous.

One thing we do have in common tho is the potential fixes to all of the bugs.

Im just not gonna let what exist now kill my overall thought of the game. I still enjoy the hell outta it.

How can people say the patch was made long before the retail game was out when crytek had to gather all the information from the time the PS3 demo was out till now. The first patch that came out when you first booted up the game was the one to fix the demo changes(360) and issues. This patch was was done in 2 weeks to calm all the harsh complaining. Now, do you think that's enough time to make, test, go through Sony and release? I dont, now I have problems with MP. Used to have 3 bars most matches, now have to bars almost all the time and now occasionally a 1 bar orbital lag fest strike where I actually see the 27 FPS they were talking about in slow-mo. So again, I ask crytek to take your time with the next patch to make sure it will fix everything you said this one would but didn't. Especially the LAG and server system which I think is the root of most players problems which now I have. I'm in it for the long haul. I did it for BBC2 which took a long time to fix, so I can do it for this game which I have confidence will be fixed...

How can people say the patch was made long before the retail game was out when crytek had to gather all the information from the time the PS3 demo was out till now. The first patch that came out when you first booted up the game was the one to fix the demo changes(360) and issues. This patch was was done in 2 weeks to calm all the harsh complaining. Now, do you think that's enough time to make, test, go through Sony and release? I dont, now I have problems with MP. Used to have 3 bars most matches, now have to bars almost all the time and now occasionally a 1 bar orbital lag fest strike where I actually see the 27 FPS they were talking about in slow-mo. So again, I ask crytek to take your time with the next patch to make sure it will fix everything you said this one would but didn't. Especially the LAG and server system which I think is the root of most players problems which now I have. I'm in it for the long haul. I did it for BBC2 which took a long time to fix, so I can do it for this game which I have confidence will be fixed...

If you seriously think that Crytek rushed out a patch to quell the storm of angry, faceless, anonymous users on this board, then you have an over-inflated sense of self-importance. Not trying to be a jerk or start anything, but it is true.

Think about it. Anyone can set up an account on here. All you need is an email address. With it being that simple, there is really nothing to stop people with nothing better to do from coming on here and just posting bogus complaints and general vitriol to try and be annoying.

What companies do is take a look at what issues are listed in a ration, reasonable way, and then investigate where such an issue would occur, if it even exists. And then, if and when they find a problem, they set about fixing it.

Also, there wasn't too much useful info Crytek could accumulate from those MP Betas as they were from old, ported builds. Especially in the case of the PS3 as it was also only up for a couple of days.

So, to answer one of your questions, no, I don't think two weeks was enough time to write a patch and get it approved. That's because it wasn't done like that. The "proof" of your arguments carry no factual weight other than your say-so. "The patch was rushed in just two weeks because I know it was." Sorry, not buying it.

I don't mind you arguing my post, but you did start something by saying I'm over-inflated with self importance. Everything you said after that was fine with me whether I agree or not. But saying that is just you being a d!ck trying to sound intelligent and criticize me with an over-inflated phrase.

Anybody who thinks this game was fine when it came out and can justify the terrible frame rate and other bugs is a grade A fool who's head is WAY up Crytek's butt.

The only way we are going to find out is by asking, which I probably won't get an answer to. Hay Cry-Guys, truthfully, did you rush patch 1.02 to quell the rage?

The only way we are going to find out is by asking, which I probably won't get an answer to. Hay Cry-Guys, truthfully, did you rush patch 1.02 to quell the rage?

Umm are you forgetting what most of us just said.... THE BLOODY GAME CAME OUT LIKE CRAP...

I don't mind you arguing my post, but you did start something by saying I'm over-inflated with self importance. Everything you said after that was fine with me whether I agree or not. But saying that is just you being a d!ck trying to sound intelligent and criticize me with an over-inflated phrase.

You are right. At the time I couldn't think of another way to say it and didn't have time to sit and think. My apologies.

Basically, what I meant is that you are under the impression that Crytek are alot more sensitive to harsh words spoken by anonymous icons on a screen than they actually are. They are grown, mature individuals who are not going to rush something that they never intended to rush just because an internet forum is filled with large amounts of nerd rage.

Apology accepted, at least I know your mature enough to know that comment was unnecessary. Like I said I don't mind people arguing my opinions, just don't get stupid because theirs enough of those people on these forums bad mouthing Crytek for a pretty good game that just needs some bugs properly patched. I hope Crytek does fix so all these people that sold their game or just talked sh!t about Crytek can eat their words and feel like a bunch of 4th graders...