Why must console players be "monkeys?" I think idiotic, ignorant people like you are the "monkeys." The platform has nothing to do with how developers make the game. - "Console fanboys prove that humans are devolving. They cant imagine an fps without corridoors, killstreaks,cheap advantages, random kills and progression system." Yes, because all of those things are the direct result of consoles.... You're retarded..

You seem to have a flawed understanding of how things work as in "stupid people buy consoles and smart people buy PCs." Just because you pay more and have better graphics doesn't mean that you're smarter than anybody. I play on my PS3 pretty regularly and I'd bet anything that you're definitely no smarter than I am.

Well, developers do make games for consoles, they even impose controllers on PC users that would never use a controller for a FPS game. They release games with no options to configure, less features, no dedicated servers and those sound like games for monkeys to me.

In the end is nothing to do with intelligence, it's to do with forcing 'consoleness' onto PC users who want more control over their games and PC's are a different beast. Console owners as general armchair people, do, want a big red button and it to work, nothing more which is what is being forced down PC users throats. Crysis 2 is a prime example of this.

Hmmm... Thing is, how much of this is "true" and how much of it is "this is my guess what happened".

As for the money issue, that's probably true, alot of business are "hurting" right now all over the world, it's this thing called the economy which is currently dug into a hole it can't climb out of.

As for "Will Crysis 2 Get Better" .. that all depends on "US", Us being the Crysis 2 players. If we continue to hang in and support the game and do not disappear, then yes.. the game will get better (patched, dx11, bugs fixed, editors), if we disappear and only a handful of player remain, then Crysis 2 just might fade away. No players, hence no need for Crytek to put much effort into fixing this game.

Were they pushed by EA for an early release? Well, that's a possibility, but no one knows that for a fact. It could have been a decision made by both sides. Any smart business person would no releasing a PC game early with major bugs/flaws would not lead to "huge sales". Thing is, game developers/publishers depend on "down the road sales" just as much or more than the "first initial sales". They need the money to continue to trickle in, putting out a horride game would "not accomplish" that.

Are people pissed and disappointed about the "not so ready Crysis 2 game" .. sure they are, but how many of you have been gaming for say, 15 years? If you have, then this is not your first bugged out / glitched up game. Crysis 2 is not anywhere near as buggy as STALKER and STALKER CS when they were first released, and those games still did quite well. I've seen games so buggy you could play single or multiplayer for more than 30 seconds before they locked up, crashed, etc.

As for the "Crysis 2 Players" .. I think as long as Crytek keeps the "hacking" under control, the game won't die and fade away. Games with uncontrollable hackers in it will kill off a game faster than anything else. I believe as long as they get this game patched and release directX 11 soon, this game still has plenty of potential. However, extreme delays in the fixes for people that are having more issues than others, can drive some players away, but once fixed, if a decent gaming community still exists, they will come back.

With that said, as long as the hacking does not get out of hand again... I believe "WE" control Crysis 2's future. So, in my opinion I would say, do you want to see the game go on and have an opportunity to have some good fun games soon? Or, are you so mad and can't find a way to say, ok they messed up, but I will let them fix it and continue to play?

I for one would REALLY like to see the fixes come, the dx11 patch released, and have the opportunity to have full Crysis 2 servers to play on!

I think you're trying to say Projected Sales versus Current Sales

Actually, pushing crappy products onto the shelf is not a new concept. Take a business class, you'll see plenty of examples. Video games isn't new for that concept to materialize either.

Why must console players be "monkeys?" I think idiotic, ignorant people like you are the "monkeys." The platform has nothing to do with how developers make the game. - "Console fanboys prove that humans are devolving. They cant imagine an fps without corridoors, killstreaks,cheap advantages, random kills and progression system." Yes, because all of those things are the direct result of consoles.... You're retarded..

You seem to have a flawed understanding of how things work as in "stupid people buy consoles and smart people buy PCs." Just because you pay more and have better graphics doesn't mean that you're smarter than anybody. I play on my PS3 pretty regularly and I'd bet anything that you're definitely no smarter than I am.

Well, developers do make games for consoles, they even impose controllers on PC users that would never use a controller for a FPS game. They release games with no options to configure, less features, no dedicated servers and those sound like games for monkeys to me.

In the end is nothing to do with intelligence, it's to do with forcing 'consoleness' onto PC users who want more control over their games and PC's are a different beast. Console owners as general armchair people, do, want a big red button and it to work, nothing more which is what is being forced down PC users throats. Crysis 2 is a prime example of this.

God forbid they make a game that isn't for you and you only... Stop convincing yourself that one platform is better than the other and you'll see things for how they really are. It wouldn't matter how Crysis 2 was at all... As long as it was multiplatform, no PC owner would be happy just because.. That's sad, too. By the way, any monkey would know that in the end, Crysis 2 was sacrificed the most to make it playable on even the crappiest PC. I guess since you're still stuck on the "PC>console" nonsense, you don't realize that this game is exactly the same as it would have been if it were PC exclusive.

My opinion of EA games began to grow weary once I got my hands on a copy of Dragon Age 2. The game is clearly unfinished due to how small the scope of the actual game was. I knew my skepticism was justified from the start considering how soon this sequel was released after Dragon Age: Origins and the expansion. In fact, perhaps my doubt even started from the DA:O expansion because it had terrible reviews from the community forum. Players were complaining of the game being incomplete and ridden with bugs. I'm glad I staved off buying Crysis 2 on release day, what a disaster.

At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if BF3 flops as well and that would be a damn shame considering how good the game looks so far from the trailers.

@OP, this was a great read and a great insight for someone who is in the business profession such as myself. But you left out the MILLIONS of dollars Crytek got through Intel and Nvidia. Also Crysis 2 has been in development for well over 3 years, which is more than enough time to push out a game ESPECIALLY as short as Crysis 2. As much as some of you do not like Call of Duty, they manage to push out a new game every year to year and half and the games are nearly spotless. Now granted that Crytek is a REALLY small company in comparison to the majority of companies they had plenty of money and time to release a great game. In the end they are both to blame, EA has been in the tank for a long time now and i pulled out my stocks from EA 3 years ago or so.

EAs desperation is clearly seen in the new Medal of Honor game as well as charging console users to pay for online keys for used EA games.

Hmmm... Thing is, how much of this is "true" and how much of it is "this is my guess what happened".

As for the money issue, that's probably true, alot of business are "hurting" right now all over the world, it's this thing called the economy which is currently dug into a hole it can't climb out of.

As for "Will Crysis 2 Get Better" .. that all depends on "US", Us being the Crysis 2 players. If we continue to hang in and support the game and do not disappear, then yes.. the game will get better (patched, dx11, bugs fixed, editors), if we disappear and only a handful of player remain, then Crysis 2 just might fade away. No players, hence no need for Crytek to put much effort into fixing this game.

Were they pushed by EA for an early release? Well, that's a possibility, but no one knows that for a fact. It could have been a decision made by both sides. Any smart business person would no releasing a PC game early with major bugs/flaws would not lead to "huge sales". Thing is, game developers/publishers depend on "down the road sales" just as much or more than the "first initial sales". They need the money to continue to trickle in, putting out a horride game would "not accomplish" that.

Are people pissed and disappointed about the "not so ready Crysis 2 game" .. sure they are, but how many of you have been gaming for say, 15 years? If you have, then this is not your first bugged out / glitched up game. Crysis 2 is not anywhere near as buggy as STALKER and STALKER CS when they were first released, and those games still did quite well. I've seen games so buggy you could play single or multiplayer for more than 30 seconds before they locked up, crashed, etc.

As for the "Crysis 2 Players" .. I think as long as Crytek keeps the "hacking" under control, the game won't die and fade away. Games with uncontrollable hackers in it will kill off a game faster than anything else. I believe as long as they get this game patched and release directX 11 soon, this game still has plenty of potential. However, extreme delays in the fixes for people that are having more issues than others, can drive some players away, but once fixed, if a decent gaming community still exists, they will come back.

With that said, as long as the hacking does not get out of hand again... I believe "WE" control Crysis 2's future. So, in my opinion I would say, do you want to see the game go on and have an opportunity to have some good fun games soon? Or, are you so mad and can't find a way to say, ok they messed up, but I will let them fix it and continue to play?

I for one would REALLY like to see the fixes come, the dx11 patch released, and have the opportunity to have full Crysis 2 servers to play on!

It has probably been said, but EA does not own CRYTEK. The ops post is putting all the blame on EA and not Crytek. He must have failed to realize that Crytek was the one who made the terrible design decisions and failed to deliver.

Your education gave you nothing.

Go get a doctors degree or smt.

EA's problem is in lacking a person with balls. So he would fire all the useless gamedesigners.

Ill just point out at NFS world, which has a so **** gamedesign team, and the team ain't gettin' fired. I even tried to help them, but could not establish any contact.

///

Crysis 2 is fine. THe problem with it was the whole game. Its a different that COD

It has probably been said, but EA does not own CRYTEK. The ops post is putting all the blame on EA and not Crytek. He must have failed to realize that Crytek was the one who made the terrible design decisions and failed to deliver.


I never said EA owns CryTek. CryTek makes certain decisions, but if it doesn't follow contract guidelines, EA can and easily cut funding. Dude, start up a business and go public, and see what I mean.

If I opened up a restaurant tomorrow and made it public, and my biggest shareholder was like "I don't like how you sell Non-Organic foods, I invested the most money in your restaurant, please only serve organic food from now on" and I was like "HELL NO" they can easily go "Ok, goodbye to your funding, b*tch! hahaha!" (Of course, I would never allow one shareholder to hold majority of shares in any of my companies, this would be incredibly retarded on my part)

Invest in a company. You'll find that you, the SHAREHOLDER, have a lot more power/control than the company itself at times. Public companies that make past a certain amount and are based in the USA (EA is based in California) are required by federal law (FASB) to release quarterly financial statements. If a report doesn't satisfy a shareholder, he or she can basically threaten that company with financial cutbacks so that the company will do what the shareholder wants. That's how public companies work. The tertiary extension from Shareholder >> EA >> CryTek is no different from Shareholder >> Apollo Management >> Your Local Grocery Store.

Companies like Apollo Management invest in a lot of other companies, such as AMC Movie Theaters, and grocery stores such as Smart and Final. At one point, they fought for control of premium food vendor Whole Foods but the deal never went through. Point being, business is not so "customer is always right"/"Customers drive businesses". Customers can only effectively drive retail businesses, i.e. Gamestop, Amazon.com. To actually change a business, you need more business-manipulative tools such as shareholding, warehouse boycott, supply shock, etc.

Basically, if we all threatened Crytek tomorrow saying that we'll never buy Crysis 3, they won't care... Or to be precise, they'll "care", but not intensely. Much of their retained earnings comes from investing activities in part by EA and Nvidia (thank you to whoever brought up the NVIDIA point). The amount of sales they make in a video game is just to demonstrate that their products are worth something (in business, this is called "goodwill" which is either managed by GAAP guidelines in the USA, or IASB guidelines outside of the USA). Again, since EA is USA-based, they are required to release financial statements on a fiscal quarterly basis that details the goodwill status of their Premium Partners companies, which includes CryTek.

Thank you for the insight. I feel a little dirty about my disappointment even if it is justified.

So, this is one of those situations where it's too much to give a ****, but I noticed some details. I also liked how the post's title is "Why this game failed." Talk about optimism or is that sheer fanboyism?

Crytek won't fail because they were intelligent enough to make a control port, two to be exact. I did notice some PC Fanboy exclusive complaints while, if you really wanna play the numbers game, PC copies only accounts for about 14% of the total copies sold. And even then, the issues we see on the forums are not every single player's opinion; it's much rather whoever is yelling the loudest, and we ARE PC gamers and notorious for being whiny, bichy lil kids when our gaming platform has become second place to the consoles.

Also, why the hell did you choose Epic games as an example? You clearly didn't see the bugs included in day one for Gears of War 2. Gears of War 2 is a 360 exclusive title that not only have Epic Game's name on it, but also Microsoft's name. Big bucks to fund, so no bugs right? Some can even say the major ones STILL exist and Gears of War 3 is coming out this year. What kind of bugs existed for a good year? Clipping through the level and being able to stalemate a match until victory.

And lastly, time to be a prick, I noticed the phrase "What does EA do? They started up CryTek UK. Hired a bunch of amateurs to slap together a separate multiplayer component away from the rest of Crysis 2." Do you realize how incorrect that statement is? CryTek isn't own by EA, as stated before, but CryTek Uk is strictly something that Crytek did; and they aren't amateurs, just a bankrupt company thanks to the game Haze. If this issue was already addressed, my bad; but honestly, all I see is another PC game who is biching about a game.

Now, time to be a true asshole: Where'd you get your education? Remind me to never send my kids there.

USA.

I agree with OP 100%. We have Crytek UK to blame for the buggy multiplayer of the game. I like the design and everything, but the multiplayer isn't polished enough for public release even after the 3 patches now.

So, this is one of those situations where it's too much to give a ****, but I noticed some details. I also liked how the post's title is "Why this game failed." Talk about optimism or is that sheer fanboyism?

Crytek won't fail because they were intelligent enough to make a control port, two to be exact. I did notice some PC Fanboy exclusive complaints while, if you really wanna play the numbers game, PC copies only accounts for about 14% of the total copies sold. And even then, the issues we see on the forums are not every single player's opinion; it's much rather whoever is yelling the loudest, and we ARE PC gamers and notorious for being whiny, bichy lil kids when our gaming platform has become second place to the consoles.

Also, why the hell did you choose Epic games as an example? You clearly didn't see the bugs included in day one for Gears of War 2. Gears of War 2 is a 360 exclusive title that not only have Epic Game's name on it, but also Microsoft's name. Big bucks to fund, so no bugs right? Some can even say the major ones STILL exist and Gears of War 3 is coming out this year. What kind of bugs existed for a good year? Clipping through the level and being able to stalemate a match until victory.

And lastly, time to be a prick, I noticed the phrase "What does EA do? They started up CryTek UK. Hired a bunch of amateurs to slap together a separate multiplayer component away from the rest of Crysis 2." Do you realize how incorrect that statement is? CryTek isn't own by EA, as stated before, but CryTek Uk is strictly something that Crytek did; and they aren't amateurs, just a bankrupt company thanks to the game Haze. If this issue was already addressed, my bad; but honestly, all I see is another PC game who is biching about a game.

Now, time to be a true asshole: Where'd you get your education? Remind me to never send my kids there.

... As I've said already, EA does not own CryTek. I don't know where people are getting this from. They're merely the publishers and investors of CryTek. Which in itself gives them a lot of control over the company's decisions. For the love of god, people, if you don't know how U.S. business works, either invest in the American stock market, start up a company, or take a goddamn business class before you try to post here. You look like a moron.

@OP, this was a great read and a great insight for someone who is in the business profession such as myself. But you left out the MILLIONS of dollars Crytek got through Intel and Nvidia. Also Crysis 2 has been in development for well over 3 years, which is more than enough time to push out a game ESPECIALLY as short as Crysis 2. As much as some of you do not like Call of Duty, they manage to push out a new game every year to year and half and the games are nearly spotless. Now granted that Crytek is a REALLY small company in comparison to the majority of companies they had plenty of money and time to release a great game. In the end they are both to blame, EA has been in the tank for a long time now and i pulled out my stocks from EA 3 years ago or so.

EAs desperation is clearly seen in the new Medal of Honor game as well as charging console users to pay for online keys for used EA games.
I love how plebeians can make pages out of a single assumption.(Not you in particular but there's a couple in here whining about consoles and "EA doesn't own Crytek") Did you read the part where you typed about Crytek being a "REALLY small company?" Why would you compare or contrast the design timeline of a "REALLY small company" with an average one? Granted you didn't say an average one because you don't thoroughly explain what's coming out of your mouth but it doesn't matter. It's obvious when you list games like Call of Duty or Medal of Honor. At worst you're comparing Crytek to a BIG company. Which is completely idiotic.

Now, take this all in. Then read the OPs post again. Maybe you'll understand what he's saying. It's really a big difference if you actually think about it.

To paint where I'm coming from. I confidently agree that any failure for Crysis two is due to EA throwing off Crytek with their selfish, underhanded, and embarrassing business practices.

So, this is one of those situations where it's too much to give a ****, but I noticed some details. I also liked how the post's title is "Why this game failed." Talk about optimism or is that sheer fanboyism?

Crytek won't fail because they were intelligent enough to make a control port, two to be exact. I did notice some PC Fanboy exclusive complaints while, if you really wanna play the numbers game, PC copies only accounts for about 14% of the total copies sold. And even then, the issues we see on the forums are not every single player's opinion; it's much rather whoever is yelling the loudest, and we ARE PC gamers and notorious for being whiny, bichy lil kids when our gaming platform has become second place to the consoles.

Also, why the hell did you choose Epic games as an example? You clearly didn't see the bugs included in day one for Gears of War 2. Gears of War 2 is a 360 exclusive title that not only have Epic Game's name on it, but also Microsoft's name. Big bucks to fund, so no bugs right? Some can even say the major ones STILL exist and Gears of War 3 is coming out this year. What kind of bugs existed for a good year? Clipping through the level and being able to stalemate a match until victory.


And lastly, time to be a prick, I noticed the phrase "What does EA do? They started up CryTek UK. Hired a bunch of amateurs to slap together a separate multiplayer component away from the rest of Crysis 2." Do you realize how incorrect that statement is? CryTek isn't own by EA, as stated before, but CryTek Uk is strictly something that Crytek did; and they aren't amateurs, just a bankrupt company thanks to the game Haze. If this issue was already addressed, my bad; but honestly, all I see is another PC game who is biching about a game.

Now, time to be a true asshole: Where'd you get your education? Remind me to never send my kids there.

... As I've said already, EA does not own CryTek. I don't know where people are getting this from. They're merely the publishers and investors of CryTek. Which in itself gives them a lot of control over the company's decisions. For the love of god, people, if you don't know how U.S. business works, either invest in the American stock market, start up a company, or take a goddamn business class before you try to post here. You look like a moron.


"What does EA do? They started up CryTek UK." Sounds like they own the company; your words, fyi. Maybe you should take an English class or common logic. CryTek started up CryTek UK when they brought Free Radical. EA didn't have a say with it or anything to do with it, so why do you claim they did and say you didn't say they owned the company? Though, I expect you to ignore my question and the rest of my post and claim some other business bullcrap... but anyway...

So, what about your whole example with Epic games being complete bunk and your examples still holding on the damn PC version. Hello, PC fanboy: http://www.destructoid.com/crysis-2-huge-success-xbox-360-dominates-sales-197396.phtml The game is selling well and was EA's biggest launch of the year, not just for the PC. Sounds like you are trying to drown out the fact with a bunch of business jargon.. oh wait, you are doing just that. You should also know this in the internet, so people lie about having degrees all the time. You're no different.

If you knew anything about business, you'd realize that the PC version shouldn't be top dog anymore. PC gaming, as the article says, is a mere 14% of sales while the 360 is 57% for Crysis 2. Any smart business person would say "Focus on the 360" after those sales figures. Instead, you wanna tell the world how Crysis 2 failed when you clearly haven't known about the sales figures.

Long story short: There will be a Crysis 3 and all of what you said is nothing more than a whiny PC gaming fanboy.

100% agree. EA is the reason the PC audience got **** over as well.

100% agree. EA is the reason the PC audience got **** over as well.

No.. they aren't. PC Gamers are clearly that stupid and you are the top of the list. First off, before I thrash you with the money issues, Battlefield 3 will be PC first with 64 player servers and EA is going to spend $100m to market it. Well, umm, doesn't that rip up the whole EA reason? YES IT DOES.

Think for two seconds: How much is a Xbox 360? It's $300 for it, controller, headset, all the cables, and even a crappy free game and that's JUST FOR $300. How much is a PC? It's $300 alone for a good video card.. then you have the case, motherboard, RAM, DVD-Drive, PSU, cables, keyboard N mouse, and... well lots of other stuff. If you wanted to save money.... what would you do?

Heck, alone my gaming rig cost well over $1000. I use the same $330 monitor for my 360 and, well, if it wasn't for my love for tech, I would have given up on PC gaming awhile back. It's a lot cheaper to play on the 360 and there's a larger player base... so it's stupid to argue that any publisher is killing PC gaming when the money and the consumer speak louder than ANY company in the damn world.

Face it: It's more cost effective as a consumer to have a console. Until a gaming rig costs less than a console and looks better comes out and piracy is dealt with, PC gaming will always be dying. Wait, lemme answer that question because such a thing does exist: a console. Now that's using a god damn business degree. >_>

Fun fact, when pirates use the argument of "Well, games cost to much" you can smack them with that same argument.

100% agree. EA is the reason the PC audience got **** over as well.

No.. they aren't. PC Gamers are clearly that stupid and you are the top of the list. First off, before I thrash you with the money issues, Battlefield 3 will be PC first with 64 player servers and EA is going to spend $100m to market it. Well, umm, doesn't that rip up the whole EA reason? YES IT DOES.

Think for two seconds: How much is a Xbox 360? It's $300 for it, controller, headset, all the cables, and even a crappy free game and that's JUST FOR $300. How much is a PC? It's $300 alone for a good video card.. then you have the case, motherboard, RAM, DVD-Drive, PSU, cables, keyboard N mouse, and... well lots of other stuff. If you wanted to save money.... what would you do?

Heck, alone my gaming rig cost well over $1000. I use the same $330 monitor for my 360 and, well, if it wasn't for my love for tech, I would have given up on PC gaming awhile back. It's a lot cheaper to play on the 360 and there's a larger player base... so it's stupid to argue that any publisher is killing PC gaming when the money and the consumer speak louder than ANY company in the damn world.

Face it: It's more cost effective as a consumer to have a console. Until a gaming rig costs less than a console and looks better comes out and piracy is dealt with, PC gaming will always be dying. Wait, lemme answer that question because such a thing does exist: a console. Now that's using a god damn business degree. >_>

Fun fact, when pirates use the argument of "Well, games cost to much" you can smack them with that same argument.
+1

I bought 360 awhile back and i havent played it for more than 3 hours alltogether.I payed €149 for it on sale,but one single game costs here in slovenia from 50-60€ or 1/3 of mine console price.Since i always look to buy bang for buck hardware my current PC didnt cost me more than 260€ with all parts new except HD and GPU.My point is you dont need to buy expensive hardware just to brag about it,you buy it to be functional,whereas my 360 just sits there by the tv and picking up dust. on it because i cant do but play games on it with the constant reminder of how much did i pay per game.If i would upgrade my rig with that money i spend for xbox i would probably prolonge my rigs life even further.

The way i see it consoles are meant for those who want to play games and dont wanna jerk around advanced options and resoulution and god knows what else,they just want to install the game and to play nothing else.And offcourse when you have a console,you dont need to think if some game will work or not. C1 was heavy for 2007 rigs,and C2 works on almost every rig today.The way i see it with C2 is that it was too much promised and far less delivered.Although the game does/might not look spectacular by todays standards for pc,i bet its the best looking game so far in fps area for xbox and there is where the 3/6 of the money is made.

You can't blame this **** on Crytek UK, the SP was also disappointing.

They used the 'city' concept to try and justify turning the game into essentially a corridor FPS. Crysis 1 was still linear, but was so open that you could actually get lost. Where the hell is that now? We should have had block after block of city to explore.

The AI in Crysis1 was also MILES better, but that's another story..

Well ,even if crytek had to deliver the game earlier for whatever reason, it wouldn't change its state anyway.

This game was first developped with consoles in mind: very few destructible environment (shoot buildings windows and you'll see), no advanced graphics, glowingobjects to tell you what to do, you can drive vehicles for 10 meters, linear as hell, no interest in making the campaign twice....
Even if crytek had 1 more year to polish, the game would still be the same (except bugs). This game is called crysis because they put the name on it.
Frankly, if crytek named it differently, people would still ask :"when is crysis 2 to be released ?". Crytek is the only one to blame for their decision, as they intended to make it in the city. We already have plenty games based on cities !

Instead they developped it for consoles thinking thinking they could milk as hell, basing the marketing on the fame around pc gamers. And on top of that fooled pc gamer fanbase by selling a game labelled as a sequel, while it's a honorable game but very generic.
And as "emperorcleon" said: the same happened with the FEAR franchise. And look at that now ! Pure generic game, just a mess.

And graphically, defendors might say it looks like one of the best (for DX9), well it would be too sad since we're in 2011, and as people get used to outdated next-gen era console graphics.

I think it's high time developpers stop thinking pc gamers can't think for themselves and behave like mass-casual gamers (the one who think like kinect is the reason for the long generation and think their console can do anything but don't even know the defference between a gpu and cpu).

EA and crytek want to focus on business ? We do the same, we'll choose and decide with our wallets. What about if they'll fail ? I don't care, it's the game: be the weapon, adapt or perish.

Well ,even if crytek had to deliver the game earlier for whatever reason, it wouldn't change its state anyway.

This game was first developped with consoles in mind: very few destructible environment (shoot buildings windows and you'll see), no advanced graphics, glowingobjects to tell you what to do, you can drive vehicles for 10 meters, linear as hell, no interest in making the campaign twice....

Exactly. They can keep spouting **** about how the PC version is better, but essentially it's just prettier, there's nothing 'better' about it.

IF there is a Crysis 3, they need to make it so that every platform gets as much as they can. This means bigger maps, bigger teams and some gameplay which requires some actual skill to play.

..and they need to STOP holding back the PC to cater to the consoles. Either scale the game back for consoles like DICE are doing with BF3, or release different versions for different platforms. PC could even have less installments if they're done properly. Most PC players are willing to play good MP games for years, not a few months until the next big thing comes out like on consoles.

Most PC players are willing to play good MP for years, not a few months until the next big thing comes out like on consoles.[/quote]

Excactly i still play FEAR online after 6 years.