1-This game is unfinished. EA didn't give enough time for Crytek. Look, I was pissed at first when the game came out, but I kind of well.....calmed down and researched why the game wasn't what I expected. Well, turns out, publishers control major release dates for games that they consider vital to their profit shares. EA postponed Crysis 2's original winter release in order to let Medal of Honor have good sales. In the extra months given, Crytek added MORE cool **** to their game. But, this extra cool **** means=need for more polishing. When the leak happened, Crytek became literally depressed to total ****. To them it's like the leak was "listening to music without all the instruments." They hated that people spoiled them selves and that the sales were spoiled, thus this were unable to efficiently worked.

WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN?

Crytek couldn't finish the game. No matter what they did or how much they could as EA, EA WILL NOT (or I should say WOULD NOT) delay the game. Crysis 2 for EA is a major Quarter 1 2011 game. Delaying it=No major game for this part of the year. It's bad business to EA. So what must Crytek do? Just ship out a working game. Rush it, polish it roughly and release. Then finish off with proper updates and patches.

2-Yes, the graphics may not be as good as Crysis 1, BUT you can't say that for all of the graphics. The water ripples are a new addition to Crysis 2's graphics and the lighting looks way better. IMO, I think the motion blur is tip top with Crysis 1's. The only flaw is lack of destructible environment and low textures.

WHY IS THIS?

To allow the game to run on consoles easier. Their memories are pathetic on their cards and this is a multiplatform game.

WHY IS THIS MULTIPLATFORM? WHY NOT JUST RELEASE IT ONLY ON PC IN THE FIRST PLACE OR CALL IT A DIFFERENT NAME?

It's multiplatform to show off the new CryEngine 3. Crytek is huge to the game development world and they should they can make the best graphics in a game EVER. Now they want to show the best ENGINE.

NOW WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Crytek wanted to show that the consoles can look **** sweet and run great on their new engine. BUT, this is an engine they are showing off so developers BUY IT. Clearly, they MUST show the PC potential with the new engine to show what it really can do. How will they show the potential? Probably though texture pack updates and DX11 updates.

As for why the game couldn't be called a different name, I think it's because well....Crysis is just **** cool. It's an alien invasion with a crazy nanosuit with freakin amazing weps and on-the-fly customization. Think about it...it's damn cool. Crytek wanted to show off the CryEngine 3 but they also wanted to dominate the console market (they got the PC market set, it's time to expand). The idea of Crysis was perfect to show the console gamers "hey, **** your **** call of duty, this game is where it's **** at." If it was called something different, then we'd get this complaint: "CRYSIS-CLONE!!"

3-Crytek still loves the PC but it's just the game was never done. Before you call this a port, go learn how CryEngine 3 works. This is not a console or PC port. It's a game built ground up on all platforms. BUT it was built with the mindset that even the weakest platform(s) must run it smoothly. THEN the stronger platforms get the features to show off their true colors AFTERWARDS during the polishing process (but remember, Crytek didn't have enough time to finish off Crysis 2).

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

It means you shouldn't abandon Crytek or feel abandoned. You bought Crysis 2 with expectations and they weren't met. I know how you feel, I **** felt the same way. But try not to be too ignorant at least. Do not let your mind be narrow and one-sided/instantaneously able to change from one view to another too quickly. It's not only a sign of mental weakness but also shows that you just aren't a true fan.




WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS STUFF IN THIS POST MEAN?

Just wait. Be patient. Give Crytek time to finish up the game. It will take time, but surely, it will be done. Mass Effect 2 is about to have an Arrival DLC, go play that when it releases, it's gonna be **** amazing. There's Dragon Age 2 to finish up. If you have the money, pick up Homefront, it's not great, but a good timekiller. Or just go outside and chill. Study a little more, read some books, just something to occupy yourself. Patience is key, and Crytek really needs it now. I'm not a Crytek "svck-up" by any means, I'm just a true fan willing to understand the situation and willing to give my support since it is necessary. I suggest everyone on this forum does the same.
It'd be a different story if I end up "waiting patiently" for let's say half a year for this game to get completely polished, but that's not the case (and hopefully, it won't be).

That's all. Try NOT to troll or flame, I would rather people talk logically and normally here. Ty.

1) They should not have released the game before it was finished. Period. Make all the excuses you want but that's not how you run a business. EA should be well aware of this.

2) Before you call this a port, go learn how CryEngine 3 works. This is not a console or PC port. It's a game built ground up on all platforms.

Going to post the same response I made in another thread to this.

Before the day 1 patch, the PC version's main menu said:

"PRESS START TO BEGIN"

Please, be so kind as to tell me where I can find my keyboard's start button?

The PC version was ported from the console build. There's no disputing that. Stop trying to.

Well, I mean, we do support Crytek for the most part,

that doesn't mean we can't criticize them. The most support we could offer them was are pocket change, and our criticisms on how to make the game better, and not saying meaningless phrases like "CRYSIS 2 IS SO AMAZING!!! I DON'T WANT DX11!!!.

There's nothing wrong with trying to console Crytek on how to make improvements, that's the whole point of this forum.

Why should I give a **** if they didn't have enough time or not?

They released a broken, unfinished game, that was made for consoles.

They can **** off for all I care.

1) They should not have released the game before it was finished. Period. Make all the excuses you want but that's not how you run a business. EA should be well aware of this.

2) Before you call this a port, go learn how CryEngine 3 works. This is not a console or PC port. It's a game built ground up on all platforms.

Going to post the same response I made in another thread to this.

Before the day 1 patch, the PC version's main menu said:

"PRESS START TO BEGIN"

Please, be so kind as to tell me where I can find my keyboard's start button?

The PC version was ported from the console build. There's no disputing that. Stop trying to.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=CryEngine+3+tech+demo&aq=f

I did the work for you, now learn how the engine works.

I'll give you the basis: Whatever happens to one version happens to all. If I have Crysis 2 and I'm making it, if I put in, "Press Enter to Start," then the console versions, DAY 1 would say "Press Enter to Start." Console gamers would go "WTF!?" BUT, see, there's TWO consoles......and ONE PC. So Crytek must make sure to make the game with the mindset that it must work on console. THEY MUST, this is indisputable, MUST work on console version first when making the game. This means, that the console configs and such were on PC when they made it. What happened after they finished? Well, first the leak. THEN they bridged the games. So the 360 version and PS3 version were being set up and readied for LIVE and PSN.

Let me see if this better helps you to understand: Crysis 2 when made consoles in mind, on the PC, was a PC game, BUT, with the console text in it. It had the better lighting, the better water, the better whatever Crytek could squeeze in that made the PC version the PC version when they bridged to begin the final process of development. While activating the PC features and implementing them (with whatever they could rush in), they forgot to do this: remove console text. They put in the PC text specifically, but FORGOT to remove the console/change some of it. How can this be? Because they are human and are rushing hard as ****.

It's not a port. THIS is a port--->Making a game on one platform (let's say 360). Then copying that game, putting it on PS3 and just replacing 360 code with PS3 to make it work. Then copying the game again and putting it on PC with PC code and menus.

BUT with Crysis 2 it was all made at once. When making the game on CryEngine 3, you have THREE screens to look at, not one. THREE. A PC screen, a 360 and PS3 screen. All made ground up. It's a key feature and prime selling point for CryEngine 3 and many developers are loving this ****.

-And also, EA whether they were aware of the game being finished or not, don't give a ****. They see the hype and are confident about the marketing. **** look at **** medal of honor. They should've been aware it's a crap game, but they don't give a ****. They released it. They want their money as fast as possible. It's the publishers job. Game developers study to become game developers because they love games and want to make it, but publishers, are people with business majors seeking only to get the most amounts of money in the fastest amount of time.

So, you work at Crytek, right? I mean, if you know all this is because you have internal information regarding the decisions behind closed doors at Crytek.

I don't care about DX11, I can only play at DX9, but even for DX9 the graphics svck. I found no difference between C2 and HL2 graphics, are the same quality. In Crysis and Warhead the graphics were a lot better than HL2.
It is suppose that you can make a game for 3 systems with CryEngine 3, and that mean that you put all the best graphics on the game and the engine scale down this to meat the requirements on the xcrap and PS3, not the way around. Right now the game was developed with onlythe xcrap in mind, so on PC the graphics are like HL2 or worst. Some times you wonder if behind that corner you will cross over a guy dressed in an orange suit with a crowbar on the hand. Even the history resemble HL2.

Well, I mean, we do support Crytek for the most part,

that doesn't mean we can't criticize them. The most support we could offer them was are pocket change, and our criticisms on how to make the game better, and not saying meaningless phrases like "CRYSIS 2 IS SO AMAZING!!! I DON'T WANT DX11!!!.

There's nothing wrong with trying to console Crytek on how to make improvements, that's the whole point of this forum.

Oh yeah, I know what you mean. By all means, do criticize, but don't lose support. People on the forums are hating and just leaving Crytek and are just giving up. Like, what the ****, what kind of fan is that?

Constructive criticism is what you want to give Crytek. But avoid ignorance, that's the point of this thread. To just tell people who are mindlessly hating to stop hating, because most of/all of the reasons they have for hating are just plain out ridiculous, false, and just unsupportive :/

A port means taking something designed with the constraints of consoles and putting it on PC with minimal adjustments, testing, and debugging beforehand. I don't care how CryEngine 3 encapsulates and abstracts the development. The fact that it was on a console constrained the development of the PC version, and as far as I can tell, NO effort was made to push the PC version further along after they got done with the consoles. That is the very definition of port.

So, you work at Crytek, right? I mean, if you know all this is because you have internal information regarding the decisions behind closed doors at Crytek.

I don't care about DX11, I can only play at DX9, but even for DX9 the graphics svck. I found no difference between C2 and HL2 graphics, are the same quality. In Crysis and Warhead the graphics were a lot better than HL2.
It is suppose that you can make a game for 3 systems with CryEngine 3, and that mean that you put all the best graphics on the game and the engine scale down this to meat the requirements on the xcrap and PS3, not the way around. Right now the game was developed with onlythe xcrap in mind, so on PC the graphics are like HL2 or worst. Some times you wonder if behind that corner you will cross over a guy dressed in an orange suit with a crowbar on the hand. Even the history resemble HL2.


I do not work for Crytek. But I'm an educated person who loves to game and who does his research intensively. I know the publishers/developers relationship through let's say, the relationship with Infinity Ward/Activision. Why was Modern Warfare 2 such a flop on PC? Can't be the developers? Well, it wasn't. It all pointed to Activision....but that's for another thread because it's off topic and it would take me A **** LOAD to explain.

If you understand business/have done an internship, it becomes more clear. And for you to say Crysis 2 and Half Life 2 have equal graphics quality and that in DX9 the graphics svck is pure signs of ignorance. Why? Because I and ****, TENS OF THOUSANDS of other PC gamers, 50+ major critics, and even CONSOLE gamers are stating how Crysis 2 is one of the best looking PC games on the market (and console gamers are saying "PC." They state its one of the best for PC and THE BEST for console....for the most part at least, this is just estimating off the console threads and comments I read).

So, you work at Crytek, right? I mean, if you know all this is because you have internal information regarding the decisions behind closed doors at Crytek.

I don't care about DX11, I can only play at DX9, but even for DX9 the graphics svck. I found no difference between C2 and HL2 graphics, are the same quality. In Crysis and Warhead the graphics were a lot better than HL2.
It is suppose that you can make a game for 3 systems with CryEngine 3, and that mean that you put all the best graphics on the game and the engine scale down this to meat the requirements on the xcrap and PS3, not the way around. Right now the game was developed with onlythe xcrap in mind, so on PC the graphics are like HL2 or worst. Some times you wonder if behind that corner you will cross over a guy dressed in an orange suit with a crowbar on the hand. Even the history resemble HL2.

Crysis 2 has the same quality graphics as Half-Life 2? I'm sorry, but I just facepalmed there. In my opinion, Crysis 2's graphics are already better than the original Crysis and Crysis Warhead's. I think many people think the original graphics are better because of the water. The water in the originals do look fantastic, but Crysis 2's waters are more realistic. Where on Earth are you able to find such clean and clear water like the water in the original Crysis games? Crysis 2's water is a little bit dirty, which is realistic. Anyways, that's just what I think.

And I completely agree with the OP. I think there should be more positive spirited people like him in these forums. The haters can complain all they want, however, nothing good will come out of it.

A port means taking something designed with the constraints of consoles and putting it on PC with minimal adjustments, testing, and debugging beforehand. I don't care how CryEngine 3 encapsulates and abstracts the development. The fact that it was on a console constrained the development of the PC version, and as far as I can tell, NO effort was made to push the PC version further along after they got done with the consoles. That is the very definition of port.

100% wrong. That's NOT a port -_- Not even close. I already gave the definition of a port do not try to change it.

What you are talking about is this: Development of a game with specific limitations so that it works on all platforms. NOT a port. Consoles did strained the development of the PC version but thats because it's a multiplatform game. The constraints get loose one the console versions are done. A port is LITERALLY.....I'm going to use Crysis 2 as an example....LITERALLY making the game on Xbox 360, ripping it out, slapping it on PC, rewriting it so that it can work on a PC instead of only an xbox 360, and then slapping on "PC" on the box. BUT, that's not how Crysis 2 was made for PC >_>

Don't try to change the definition of a port. Lol, because your definition is vastly incorrect. Come to me with a SOLID reason if you want to properly refute me in anything. Don't make crap up; you'll never win arguments/debates if you do such a thing.

A port means taking something designed with the constraints of consoles and putting it on PC with minimal adjustments, testing, and debugging beforehand. I don't care how CryEngine 3 encapsulates and abstracts the development. The fact that it was on a console constrained the development of the PC version, and as far as I can tell, NO effort was made to push the PC version further along after they got done with the consoles. That is the very definition of port.

100% wrong. That's NOT a port -_- Not even close. I already gave the definition of a port do not try to change it.

What you are talking about is this: Development of a game with specific limitations so that it works on all platforms. NOT a port. Consoles did strained the development of the PC version but thats because it's a multiplatform game. The constraints get loose one the console versions are done. A port is LITERALLY.....I'm going to use Crysis 2 as an example....LITERALLY making the game on Xbox 360, ripping it out, slapping it on PC, rewriting it so that it can work on a PC instead of only an xbox 360, and then slapping on "PC" on the box. BUT, that's not how Crysis 2 was made for PC >_>

Don't try to change the definition of a port. Lol, because your definition is vastly incorrect. Come to me with a SOLID reason if you want to properly refute me in anything. Don't make crap up; you'll never win arguments/debates if you do such a thing.

Semantics. The end result is the same in a parallel development scenario, and that's what really matters. Historically, the only scenario in which that is NOT the case is the one in which the PC is the lead development platform and the console versions are ported FROM the PC version.

What you say about CryEngine 3 being a parallel multiplatform development engine is true, but Crytek failed (for whatever reason) to push the kind of quality most PC players were expecting out of the engine on the PC side, with the end result being something that very much resembles and feels like a console port.

Walks like a port. Quacks like a port.

As for the game being pushed to release early, I fully blame that on EA, not Crytek. However, that doesn't excuse EA at all. This is a lesson they should have learned from NUMEROUS other releases, and yet they've still failed to do so.

A port means taking something designed with the constraints of consoles and putting it on PC with minimal adjustments, testing, and debugging beforehand. I don't care how CryEngine 3 encapsulates and abstracts the development. The fact that it was on a console constrained the development of the PC version, and as far as I can tell, NO effort was made to push the PC version further along after they got done with the consoles. That is the very definition of port.

100% wrong. That's NOT a port -_- Not even close. I already gave the definition of a port do not try to change it.

What you are talking about is this: Development of a game with specific limitations so that it works on all platforms. NOT a port. Consoles did strained the development of the PC version but thats because it's a multiplatform game. The constraints get loose one the console versions are done. A port is LITERALLY.....I'm going to use Crysis 2 as an example....LITERALLY making the game on Xbox 360, ripping it out, slapping it on PC, rewriting it so that it can work on a PC instead of only an xbox 360, and then slapping on "PC" on the box. BUT, that's not how Crysis 2 was made for PC >_>

Don't try to change the definition of a port. Lol, because your definition is vastly incorrect. Come to me with a SOLID reason if you want to properly refute me in anything. Don't make crap up; you'll never win arguments/debates if you do such a thing.

Semantics. The end result is the same in a parallel development scenario, and that's what really matters. Historically, the only scenario in which that is NOT the case is the one in which the PC is the lead development platform and the console versions are ported FROM the PC version.

What you say about CryEngine 3 being a parallel multiplatform development engine is true, but Crytek failed (for whatever reason) to push the kind of quality most PC players were expecting out of the engine on the PC side, with the end result being something that very much resembles and feels like a console port.

Walks like a port. Quacks like a port.

As for the game being pushed to release early, I fully blame that on EA, not Crytek. However, that doesn't excuse EA at all. This is a lesson they should have learned from NUMEROUS other releases, and yet they've still failed to do so.

THIS is a port:

-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjNEKnifT5M
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWIJTydRLt8

YOU THINK that Crysis 2 is a port, but I think I know why. It's very similar to the console versions. Newsflash: It's a multiplatform game. Look at Bad company 2. Now that's a PC game. BUT, DICE didn't even do that much with the graphics for PC. Oh wait, they put DX11, but it's not even THAT impressive. It's still a PC game though because it was built like one when they finalized the polishing in the final process of development.

Crytek only failed to push out the PC quality we expected because THEY DIDN'T have time. It's not "for whatever reason" because the reason is already there right in front of everyone's face. THAT'S WHY DX11 is not release. THAT'S WHY we need patches and updates. THAT'S WHY Cry-Tom and Cry-Adam have to communicate with the PC forum mostly. THAT'S WHY we must just wait. It's not a port, end of story >_> The way it was made, just it isn't a port. It's similar to the other versions of the game, but that's the **** IDEA. It's a multiplatform game. Resembelance and feels like a console port you said, but it's not a port. It's resembelance and feel of a console game gives the sense of similarity, only because, the PC textures and DX11 and etc. have yet to be implemented because Crytek had no time to put them in. DOES THIS MAKE SENSE TO YOU NOW? It's OKAY, to be wrong and to just admit it >_> It's not going to be the end of the world and I, potentially with other people, would respect you more if you just realize and admit that you're wrong. It's not a bad thing to be wrong sheesh >_<"

And yes, EA SHOULD learn. But they don't. And they don't care. Why? Because they still get sales from those games they should be learning from. They are business men, not gamers who studied to develop games. They just send the games out and get the profit, they don't give a ****, and probably never will (but who knows).

Well I barely read anything but from what I did read I gathered he is saying this isn't a console port.

Then let me ask you this.

Why are they still coding the PC version (AKA DX11) if Cry Engine did its job? The whole Simultaneous thing only proves our point. It was made for consoles and then Cry Engine 3 just made it work on PC. Thats why we get this 1/2 resolution textures than the first Crysis, that why we originally had Press Start to begin and that why this game look exactly like the console version. Minus the extra bits the PC can do like AA, AF and slightly better textures over consoles.

This is why they are still coding the PC game and why we have so many issues. Cause they didn't take the time to not make a console port.

First off all, read my whole post. It's not a "console port" I specifically explain WHY, read it all. ALL OF IT. And learn how the engine works, do some research.

Moving on, they made the game for all platforms. Let me put it this way. When a developer, like DICE with Bad Company 2, makes a multiplatform game, they must first MAKE IT WITH CONSOLES IN MIND. DICE made BC2 for the consoles, ported it to PC, adn then added the extra PC features and changed up to PC text. Essentially, BC2 is a console port.

BUT, Crytek made Crysis 2 with consoles in mind so that it WORKS for them. Then when it's finished, they branch the game out. Console versions leave for polishing and the PC version is left so they can add all the extra **** to it. The 1/2 textures and what not you mentioned exist because the game isn't done yet. I wrote a **** long post explaining it all, read it, and do research. You want to call yourself a true fan? Then be willing to understand.

CRYTEK DOES NOT NEED OUR SUPPORT ANYMORE! it has EA support now! THEIR MONEY, THEIR RULLS! SIMPLE!
"-CEVAT YOU WANT MORE DONKEY MEAT FOR X-MASS?
-SURE THING MR HANKEY !
-Then go MAXIMUM CONSOLE"

What cool new stuff did Crytek add? They had the game postponed and it is more buggy then some betas I have tested.

If you recall the Battlefield Bad Company 2 OPEN Beta, you would note that was actually LESS buggy than this release.

They should have expedited the process by running a PC BETA. I would prefer an OPEN BETA because the developers get more feedback than would be received from a CLOSED BETA but I doubt they ran any form of BETA testing for the pc game. These are bugs that any casual player can spot within minutes. This game has so many game-breaking bugs that I can honestly say I don’t even recall any game I have played in the past few years, BETA or otherwise, that is nearly as buggy as this game. Literally, almost every aspect of this game suffers from serious issues: connection, lobby, multiplayer user interface, progression, graphics, AI, etc.

When a final release is buggier than most BETAs, someone dropped the ball.

Depressed? They’re making a game and many games become leaked. Why that would cause a bunch of advlts to become depressed is beyond me. I deal with Biotech/Pharma. When a startup company loses all its cash and can’t attract investors, leading to a total company collapse (which happens frequently), that is depressing. When a drug company spends 700 million dollars testing a drug in hopes of FDA approval only to be rejected, that is depressing. This is child’s play. They’re a bunch of advlts and the emotional aspect of their work is trivial at best.

Furthermore, releasing Crysis 2 Quarter 1 was absurd. Quarter 1 releases are usually done to avoid excess competition during Q4 before Christmas so these games are usually delayed from Q4.

The graphics are almost trivial at this point- they have more fundamental gameplay flaws here. These aren’t small flaws-these are glaring major flaws. This game needs a serious set of patches. I mean a series of fairly significant fixes just to make this game borderline acceptable.

Other developers want an engine that is scalable and is not too demanding. Other than EPIC with its Unreal Engine, very few developers make much $ from a game engine. Furthermore,

Furthermore, Crytek has failed repeatedly with their engines. Frankly, I would go as far as to say they are amateurs when it comes to garnering mass appeal for their engine. The engines they have developed since Far Cry have gotten little to no outside attention.

The real world has little room for blatant unapologetic incompetence, outside of those who got jobs due to nepotism. Crytek either doesn’t care because PC gamers are no longer their major source of revenue or they are incompetent. Unfortunately, that doesn’t garner any sympathy from me.

What cool new stuff did Crytek add? They had the game postponed and it is more buggy then some betas I have tested.

If you recall the Battlefield Bad Company 2 OPEN Beta, you would note that was actually LESS buggy than this release.

They should have expedited the process by running a PC BETA. I would prefer an OPEN BETA because the developers get more feedback than would be received from a CLOSED BETA but I doubt they ran any form of BETA testing for the pc game. These are bugs that any casual player can spot within minutes. This game has so many game-breaking bugs that I can honestly say I don’t even recall any game I have played in the past few years, BETA or otherwise, that is nearly as buggy as this game. Literally, almost every aspect of this game suffers from serious issues: connection, lobby, multiplayer user interface, progression, graphics, AI, etc.

When a final release is buggier than most BETAs, someone dropped the ball.

Depressed? They’re making a game and many games become leaked. Why that would cause a bunch of advlts to become depressed is beyond me. I deal with Biotech/Pharma. When a startup company loses all its cash and can’t attract investors, leading to a total company collapse (which happens frequently), that is depressing. When a drug company spends 700 million dollars testing a drug in hopes of FDA approval only to be rejected, that is depressing. This is child’s play. They’re a bunch of advlts and the emotional aspect of their work is trivial at best.

Furthermore, releasing Crysis 2 Quarter 1 was absurd. Quarter 1 releases are usually done to avoid excess competition during Q4 before Christmas so these games are usually delayed from Q4.

The graphics are almost trivial at this point- they have more fundamental gameplay flaws here. These aren’t small flaws-these are glaring major flaws. This game needs a serious set of patches. I mean a series of fairly significant fixes just to make this game borderline acceptable.

Other developers want an engine that is scalable and is not too demanding. Other than EPIC with its Unreal Engine, very few developers make much $ from a game engine. Furthermore,

Furthermore, Crytek has failed repeatedly with their engines. Frankly, I would go as far as to say they are amateurs when it comes to garnering mass appeal for their engine. The engines they have developed since Far Cry have gotten little to no outside attention.

The real world has little room for blatant unapologetic incompetence, outside of those who got jobs due to nepotism. Crytek either doesn’t care because PC gamers are no longer their major source of revenue or they are incompetent. Unfortunately, that doesn’t garner any sympathy from me.

+1 THANK YOU!!! I'm involved with running a business with my father and I knew if we ever screwed customers as hard as crytek has we'd be out of business. The fact that they release a nearly non functioning product is utter bull crap and should be illegal in all honesty. Those of you saying give them time and boo hoo have no clue how the real world works and must be fine with purchasing a half completed product.

Console Port, its an easy concept really.

When a game is made first on console and then its made (In whatever manner) to then run on PC having certain PC features PATCHED in at a later time, is a console port.

Whats not a console port?

When a game is made for PC first and foremost with all the PC features set to work properly and then DOWNGRADED to then run on consoles.

There you guys have it. Simple concept isn't it?

Any questions?

+1

Simple as long as your head isn't as thick as a nano suit in armor mode ; )

Alright, I'm going to give the simple and easy definition for everyone on what a port is -_-"

Port-Cut from one thing and paste to another.

THAT'S IT. It's not "made in the mind of the console and then made in the mind of the PC. OMG IT WAS CONSOLES THOUGHT OF FIRST!! CONSOLE PORT CONSOLE PORT!" No that's incorrect. I mean, look most console gamers I see are stupid but they aren't stupid enough to go with this kind of logic, I'm surprised so many PC gamers don't know what a port is. Seriously, google the **** if you want to know it -_-"

Crysis 2=/=console OR PC port

I've already proved it, and the fact that some of you are denying it just goes to show the ignorance you guys have. It svcks to see the PC gaming community become like this; at LEAST it's not like the console community but still, the sense of logic and maturity is dying in the PC community.


@Silmarillion151

Here's the thing though.....it's EA who controlled the release date. Oh yeah, Crytek definately shouldn't have released this screwing over the customers buying the game, or so you put it. But see, it's not up to them when they release the game, it's up to the publisher, EA. I already explained this. You and your father run a business but is it a gaming business with the publisher/developer relationship? Business has many branches, and the gaming business is a VERY different branch from whatever you and your dad are working in (unless you guys ARE in a gaming branch of business).

Console Port, its an easy concept really.

When a game is made first on console and then its made (In whatever manner) to then run on PC having certain PC features PATCHED in at a later time, is a console port.

Whats not a console port?

When a game is made for PC first and foremost with all the PC features set to work properly and then DOWNGRADED to then run on consoles.

There you guys have it. Simple concept isn't it?

Any questions?

Only thing is, Crysis 2 was not made on console first. It was made on all 3 platforms AT THE SAME TIME. But, tell me this: How the **** is Crytek going to put in DX11, high res textures, and a whole bunch of other **** that only PC can handle, and then make consoles handle it? If they put all this stuff in first and released the game, the console versions would not even be able to exist, they couldn't run. That is why developers ALWAYS make sure it works on the weakest console and work their ways up. Updates and patches are for finishing what's not finished and fixing.

Ports=Copy and Paste

That's it. It's not "whatever manner" as you say. It's "whatever manner" when it involves copy and paste, but Crysis 2 is not a copy and paste method. It was made at the same time equally and then branched and fixed up for each version. If there was another 3 months for Crytek to work on Crysis 2, we would need no patches or updates and YOU specifically, would probably be saying "this is a damn good PC game." But see, that's not the case. The game needs to be finished by patches and updates, and because of this you just yell "console port!" Can you catch my drift? Are you understanding where I'm going with this?

So, you work at Crytek, right? I mean, if you know all this is because you have internal information regarding the decisions behind closed doors at Crytek.

I don't care about DX11, I can only play at DX9, but even for DX9 the graphics svck. I found no difference between C2 and HL2 graphics, are the same quality. In Crysis and Warhead the graphics were a lot better than HL2.
It is suppose that you can make a game for 3 systems with CryEngine 3, and that mean that you put all the best graphics on the game and the engine scale down this to meat the requirements on the xcrap and PS3, not the way around. Right now the game was developed with onlythe xcrap in mind, so on PC the graphics are like HL2 or worst. Some times you wonder if behind that corner you will cross over a guy dressed in an orange suit with a crowbar on the hand. Even the history resemble HL2.

Wow, you must REALLY be retarded
i mean really.

I feel reluctant to post another reply because I think the OP might just be trolling us.

I mean, how else can you explain such ridiculous views?

This is not a port. Like what was said a port is rewriting the code to run on another platform.

As for parrallel development that would say your developing multiple code at the same time. Multiplatform games like this are developed as one code that code then has to go through API and special classes to have it run on a specific platform. The code has restrictions and contraints to meet requirements for limiting factors on any of the platforms used, so yes having planned it to run on consoles has limited the capabilities. As for DX even if the engine can run DX11 doesn't mean the dx11 elements were added to the original code/resources, and since it is PC specific it makes sense that its going to be added seperately (though it should of been added at launch, but clearly this game was falling behind in development)

As for DX11- seriously Why is this so crucial to so many, I rather have a game that runs better with true PC features/controls than graphics. If DX11 is the next major patch for this game then congrats PC users went from an ok looking mediocre game to a Great looking mediocre game. Seriously this many ppl are buying games just for the way they look?

Personally I am more concerned with the real issues of having it designed around consoles has given us. Limitations to mainly such as, the true use of the keyboard (too many functions sharing the same keys- zoom/melee really?- stuck using 1 bind per function- not as many functions in general), lost lean, limited size of maps, limited size of MP, lost run (not just speed boost), lost being able to actually set power mode (was useful for melee, long range shooting to steady the gun not just for running/jumping), things like picking up the dead to use as weapons/shields, use of vehicles in MP and im sure I have missed a few others. The list above isn't bugs/balance/graphics features that can be patched and updated these are Gameplay features that generally you never see a company add later on unless it was an expansion that would cost more just to finish the product.

I feel reluctant to post another reply because I think the OP might just be trolling us.

I mean, how else can you explain such ridiculous views?

Knowledge. I research and study. I pay attention to not only game conventions but development conventions. I know how the business world works. I know the shoes of a game developer. I know this because of my research and studying. Internships can play a part too if they were to be counted as one's research and studying.

I'm not trolling. This is the point of the thread: Calm down, understand why Crysis 2 is unfinished, and support Crytek because they need the support. Don't tell me I need to give you a definition of what a troll is O_O"

This is not a port. Like what was said a port is rewriting the code to run on another platform.

As for parrallel development that would say your developing multiple code at the same time. Multiplatform games like this are developed as one code that code then has to go through API and special classes to have it run on a specific platform. The code has restrictions and contraints to meet requirements for limiting factors on any of the platforms used, so yes having planned it to run on consoles has limited the capabilities. As for DX even if the engine can run DX11 doesn't mean the dx11 elements were added to the original code/resources, and since it is PC specific it makes sense that its going to be added seperately (though it should of been added at launch, but clearly this game was falling behind in development)

As for DX11- seriously Why is this so crucial to so many, I rather have a game that runs better with true PC features/controls than graphics. If DX11 is the next major patch for this game then congrats PC users went from an ok looking mediocre game to a Great looking mediocre game. Seriously this many ppl are buying games just for the way they look?

Personally I am more concerned with the real issues of having it designed around consoles has given us. Limitations to mainly such as, the true use of the keyboard (too many functions sharing the same keys- zoom/melee really?- stuck using 1 bind per function- not as many functions in general), lost lean, limited size of maps, limited size of MP, lost run (not just speed boost), lost being able to actually set power mode (was useful for melee, long range shooting to steady the gun not just for running/jumping), things like picking up the dead to use as weapons/shields, use of vehicles in MP and im sure I have missed a few others. The list above isn't bugs/balance/graphics features that can be patched and updated these are Gameplay features that generally you never see a company add later on unless it was an expansion that would cost more just to finish the product.

You nailed it. +10