PS: My Username is blondbassist but I can't change it back ( Ironic with the subject i'll be talking about ).

Look at us gamers, Sat here with a clearly rushed and unfinished product that we payed good money for ( Well I did, don't know if you guys aquired yours by other means ) Begging the Developers to fix the game that shouldn't of been shipped in this state in the first place and gaining little to no progress on the matter what so ever.

I find this pathetic, Is games being finished on shipment a thing of the past?

Gaming isn't getting any cheaper, which would be fine if the quality of the products kept progressing, but it seems that they are trying to get away with as little work as possible on shipment then continuining the development of the game through patches.

Don't developers strive to make just a fricking Good game that is finished anymore? Or is it all in the marketing and the Hype and if the game is crap it doesn't matter.




Do you think Patches are a good thing? Do you think Patches should be removed completely? or do you think that they should be limited to 3 per game. Or Microsoft should charge a horrendous amount of money for them to discourage multi-patches. ( Microsoft would agree with that one no doubt ).

PS: My Username is blondbassist but I can't change it back ( Ironic with the subject i'll be talking about ).

Look at us gamers, Sat here with a clearly rushed and unfinished product that we payed good money for ( Well I did, don't know if you guys aquired yours by other means ) Begging the Developers to fix the game that shouldn't of been shipped in this state in the first place and gaining little to no progress on the matter what so ever.

I find this pathetic, Is games being finished on shipment a thing of the past?

Gaming isn't getting any cheaper, which would be fine if the quality of the products kept progressing, but it seems that they are trying to get away with as little work as possible on shipment then continuining the development of the game through patches.

Don't developers strive to make just a fricking Good game that is finished anymore? Or is it all in the marketing and the Hype and if the game is crap it doesn't matter.




Do you think Patches are a good thing? Do you think Patches should be removed completely? or do you think that they should be limited to 3 per game. Or Microsoft should charge a horrendous amount of money for them to discourage multi-patches. ( Microsoft would agree with that one no doubt ).
Patches are fine for me, although I do appreciate a quality game that does not need a major patch. If microsoft didn't have to do their stupid "certification," then I'm sure we would all be playing Crysis 2 right now...

You realize the distributer (EA) is responsible for the release date of the game. The developers signed a contract with EA, which gave them so much time to finish the game, thus EA spent so much money on the development of the game. For them to have pushed back the release to fix the issues in the net code and such would have meant a violation of contract. For all we know, that could have meant EA taking the Crysis name and game away from Cryteck (similar to that scandal with the devs of COD), bullying Cryteck into having their product shipped on the agreed upon release date. Don't blame the devs, they were just abiding to their contracts, and please stop biching about the damn game, frankly aside from a few glitches I have no problems in the game and have only experienced one noticeable case of lag.

You realize the distributer (EA) is responsible for the release date of the game. The developers signed a contract with EA, which gave them so much time to finish the game, thus EA spent so much money on the development of the game. For them to have pushed back the release to fix the issues in the net code and such would have meant a violation of contract. For all we know, that could have meant EA taking the Crysis name and game away from Cryteck (similar to that scandal with the devs of COD), bullying Cryteck into having their product shipped on the agreed upon release date. Don't blame the devs, they were just abiding to their contracts, and please stop biching about the damn game, frankly aside from a few glitches I have no problems in the game and have only experienced one noticeable case of lag.

thank you! at least someone who's not a little whiner and knows what's up. i salute you sir!:)

You realize the distributer (EA) is responsible for the release date of the game. The developers signed a contract with EA, which gave them so much time to finish the game, thus EA spent so much money on the development of the game. For them to have pushed back the release to fix the issues in the net code and such would have meant a violation of contract. For all we know, that could have meant EA taking the Crysis name and game away from Cryteck (similar to that scandal with the devs of COD), bullying Cryteck into having their product shipped on the agreed upon release date. Don't blame the devs, they were just abiding to their contracts, and please stop biching about the damn game, frankly aside from a few glitches I have no problems in the game and have only experienced one noticeable case of lag.

NO. ea did not tell crytek when crysis 2 will be released. the developer told the publisher when to expect a finished product so the publisher would be able to start marketing and take care of production/distribution.
crytek obviously couldn't keep up with their own timetable and then at least one of these two companies decided to NOT postpone the release, but sell an unfinished product to the public. we don't know who's decision it was, but what we now is:
it is absolutely not unusual to delay the release of a game, there is nothing to be ashamed of that. in fact more often than not a commercial timetable doesn't work out in reality, whether it's about a videogame or a building. costs are usually higher than calculated, as are work-hours. if crytek/EA had postponed the release for 3 months.. noone would have cared.
we know too that more and more games recently have been released "unfinished", with a patch available online from day 1 and many more to follow in the first weeks/months - and while i'm not a fan of behaviour like that since it would be absolutely unthinkable in my profession, at least there was a basic level of communication going on between dev/publisher and the consumers.

crytek did not postpone the release. they did not fix the game's most obvious issues with the release date patch, they did not fix the most obvious issues (grain glitch, **** up matchmaking) with the second or even the third patch.
crytek did not comment on the list of issues we, the users, provided them with, they didn't even care to ask us for that - the feedback thread listing the issues had to be created by an user.
over a month after release, with online-player-counts decerasing day by day, crytek has not even acknowledged that anything is wrong with their matchmaking system.
crytek employs TWO moderators for this forums. just another example of how much crytek cares about their community: "communi-who?"

crytek **** up, not ea, shown clearly by their lack of interest in "their" community.
sony didn't comment on the hacked-psn for a week and raised a ****-storm of public complaints on that matter. of course, there's credit cards and other personal information involved (don't get me started on e-mail usernames on gamesas.com), but after 1 month+ i think it's safe to say that a public statement by crytek is long overdue.

You realize the distributer (EA) is responsible for the release date of the game. The developers signed a contract with EA, which gave them so much time to finish the game, thus EA spent so much money on the development of the game. For them to have pushed back the release to fix the issues in the net code and such would have meant a violation of contract. For all we know, that could have meant EA taking the Crysis name and game away from Cryteck (similar to that scandal with the devs of COD), bullying Cryteck into having their product shipped on the agreed upon release date. Don't blame the devs, they were just abiding to their contracts, and please stop biching about the damn game, frankly aside from a few glitches I have no problems in the game and have only experienced one noticeable case of lag.

NO. ea did not tell crytek when crysis 2 will be released. the developer told the publisher when to expect a finished product so the publisher would be able to start marketing and take care of production/distribution.
crytek obviously couldn't keep up with their own timetable and then at least one of these two companies decided to NOT postpone the release, but sell an unfinished product to the public. we don't know who's decision it was, but what we now is:
it is absolutely not unusual to delay the release of a game, there is nothing to be ashamed of that. in fact more often than not a commercial timetable doesn't work out in reality, whether it's about a videogame or a building. costs are usually higher than calculated, as are work-hours. if crytek/EA had postponed the release for 3 months.. noone would have cared.
we know too that more and more games recently have been released "unfinished", with a patch available online from day 1 and many more to follow in the first weeks/months - and while i'm not a fan of behaviour like that since it would be absolutely unthinkable in my profession, at least there was a basic level of communication going on between dev/publisher and the consumers.

crytek did not postpone the release. they did not fix the game's most obvious issues with the release date patch, they did not fix the most obvious issues (grain glitch, **** up matchmaking) with the second or even the third patch.
crytek did not comment on the list of issues we, the users, provided them with, they didn't even care to ask us for that - the feedback thread listing the issues had to be created by an user.
over a month after release, with online-player-counts decerasing day by day, crytek has not even acknowledged that anything is wrong with their matchmaking system.
crytek employs TWO moderators for this forums. just another example of how much crytek cares about their community: "communi-who?"

crytek **** up, not ea, shown clearly by their lack of interest in "their" community.
sony didn't comment on the hacked-psn for a week and raised a ****-storm of public complaints on that matter. of course, there's credit cards and other personal information involved (don't get me started on e-mail usernames on gamesas.com), but after 1 month+ i think it's safe to say that a public statement by crytek is long overdue.

Thats what I thought, And Crytek/EA did postpone the Release, It was originally due out last summer ( Summer 2010 ) for what ever reason ( Probably so far behind in the build ) they HAD to postpone it.

My guess? Either Engine they have just svcks balls ( Fix one thing another thing may break afterwards ) or by the fact that they were over ambitious or were just understaffed, hence like you say, only two moderators on the whole forum.

The studio (Crytek UK, formally Free Radical) that made the MP half of the game were under-staffed. 50 staff members and a 2 year deadline to get the game up to scratch. Over-ambitious much?

"Nah, She'll be right Mate, the consumer won't notice, 80% of them will be console half-wits, so we can just treat them like the children they so obviously are. They'll still buy it, we'll get paid, jokes on the consumer. svckers."

[Maximum Ambition Engaged: Achieved with CryEngine3]