![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
![](./images/smilies/spacer.gif)
It's a p*ss-take aimed squarely at the people who keep complaining about the dumbing down of the graphics for the console market, which is why I thought it apt to post here
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Moderators: IMOC Moderators, IMOC Committee Members
matt_mr2t wrote:Andy, some people only play COD though and refuse to even try other things any more.![]()
It's like offering a crack addict something new.They're so addicted to the crack they cant give that up to try the other thing
![]()
ekona wrote:It's all a load of gobbledegook! Read the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs especially for that, and it's also comparing an older game with the new one with no genuine basis for doing so(boxes in different states, zooming in on textures that all look blocky), and then it mentions DX12 which isn't out yet nevermind being released when Crysis 1 was out, carbon production being raised 300%.
.
.
It's all cobblers.
It's a p*ss-take aimed squarely at the people who keep complaining about the dumbing down of the graphics for the console market, which is why I thought it apt to post here
ekona wrote:Their core customer base is the console market now.![]()
ekona wrote:Looking at the two versions side by side, it's hardly like the graphics are crap in either case.
ekona wrote:Surely the main point of any game is that it's fun to play, not how pretty it looks? I'd be pi$$ed at Crytek for the gameplay flaws, not the graphics.
Marf wrote:Playing the demo it just felt like a scifi COD, and that is not a compliment.
ekona wrote:Marf wrote:Yep sounds about right.Thank fizz.
Gutted, was really looking forward to seeing how they'd evolve cryengine for crysis 2.It seems they have devolved it.
Shame on me for thinking they'd keep their core fans happy by actually improving on the previous PC version.
*facepalm*
![]()
![]()
Someone needs to re-read all that and put their Sarcasm Hat back on
fizz wrote:Just started playing this on the PC and it blurs way too much when moving for my liking! The first one just seems so crisp and detailed and although the graphics look good on the new one it just has a different feel to it.The new engine aint a step forward in my eyes.
.
.
![]()
![]()
Razor04 wrote:consoles make up 90% of game developers customer base, if they want to stay in business then they gots to pander to da massiv init![]()
![]()
Marf wrote:
Do I blame Crytek for what is in my view selling out? No.![]()
Commercial pressures(unfortunately) rule all these days.
Doesnt mean I have to kiss their ar$e and call it ice cream though, does it?
Razor04 wrote:Played crysis 1 on pc n it's top drawer but limited customer base nowadays tends to be the geeky sort that can't afford£40 for a game cos dey blown their giro on a new mouse
![]()
excalibur1814 wrote:In all honesty, anyone considering playing Crysis 2 should go grab Crysis 1 and Warhead to have a full understanding of whats going on.Same for games like Half Life and.
.
.
umm, Doom?
![]()
![]()
I'm still hurt from Command and Conquer 4..
What a really bad game.
MW2: Completed last month, bit boring.
Bulletstorm: Whole lot of fun.
Metro 2033: Playing now
Crysis 2: Next
In order, I'd play Far Cry, then Crysis, Crysis Warhead, then at last Crysis 2.
P.s.Auto-aim on console games make me cry.