[citation][nom]spellbinder2050[/nom]They should have made this for the PC then worried about porting it to the consoles AFTERWARDS. Crysis 1 was, more than anything else, a benchmarking tool for hardware enthusiasts. Crytek has completely abandoned that idea and its roots.Crysis 2 doesn't even look better than Crysis 1 graphically. Crysis 2 won't even need as much pc power to run as Crysis 1 did. EPIC FAIL.[/citation]
crytek made farcry, a great looking game, that came out in 2004, and required the best to play it at full specs at the time. at this time, the ai in the game was excellent, far better than what we have experienced up to this point, and far cry was a great game for it.
the engine was amaseing, expecialy for its time. especially considering doom 3, and half life 2 were around the same time, far cry could hold its own gameplay wise.
now crysis, went balls out graphically, which looked GREAT, but was so unnecessary, and besides the visuals, was an over all average game at best.
great graphics over great gameplay... less and less a game company and more a glorified tech demo producer.
now these people manage to make a engine, which matches crysis level of tech, using less hardware, making the game look great, and play great on even modest rigs, and you call them fail for it?
you know, i could create a 2d side scrolling game that would look alike an atari 2600 game, and wouldn't be able to even play at 5fps, due to HIGHLY unoptimized coding.
now what sounds like a better game.
one no computer can play at full specs, or one that many people can play, has a chance of a large multiplayer community because of the lesser requirements?
here, let me explain in a way you may understand.
TECH DEMOS ARE TECH DEMOS, DONT EXPECT GAMES TO BE TECH DEMOS.
i have high hopes that they revamped the enemy ai, if not, there is always rage, which is telling us that thats the high point of the game.