Guest said:
I have been a PC gamer for a long time and over the 3-4 years it's the same BS from so many of you so called "hardcore" PC gamers.
Whether it's Dragon Age 2, Civ 5, Crysis 1 (too hard on hardware - this game is unoptimized), Crysis 2 (console port, don't need a Tri-SLI GTX580 to max this out - Crytek sold out!), Mafia II, Cryostasis, Mirror's Edge (Oh PhysX won't run on AMD cards), Batman (oh AA won't work on AMD cards at release), SC2 (no AA support in the beginning, game will be split into 3 parts @ $60 each), Assassin's Creed II (DRM infested), HAWX 2 (optimized for NV's tessellation superiority) -- all I hear are just complaints and complains.
Dragon Age 2 was a dumbed-down game aimed at consoles for making money. Crysis is NOT poorly optimized. Its more dependent on the GPU than the CPU. If it were unoptimized, it wouldn't run on a variety of hardware(just check YouTube and see for yourself). The other games you mention are BTW good games.
In other words, if the game is good and worth playing, the technical issues surrounding it will be addressed gradually, and most people will not have any problems with that. An example? Take The Witcher 2. There are a host of issues of technical nature that surround it. But people still play it, because the game is great, even though the hardware requirements are quite high.The developers acknowledge these issues and are working on it. So what's the problem with that?
As far as DRM is concerned, if it bothers you, just buy the game and get the crack( like I did for AC II). Nobody's stopping you from doing that.
Its true that games cost too much these days, but I'm willing to accept that cost if the game is good enough. If the game makes me happy, then its fine. However if developers are half-hearted in making a game, not justifying the cost that goes into it, then they better be ready to face the heat.An example of this category being Dragon Age II. They cannot expect people to pay 60$ for a dumbed-down sequel, or for any other game whose core gameplay and graphics remain unchanged for 4 years like CoD.
The problem with Crysis 2 is different. Its a watered-down sequel of a great game, and considering that CryTek's previous games were mainly aimed at PC gamers, its a slap in the face for them. Its at best an above average shooter, bearing no similarities to Crysis, aimed at console gamers with over-simplified controls and gameplay(with some aspects copied form other games, like the cover system from Killzone 2), linear levels and graphics nowhere close to the original. Moreover it still costs 60$ and now they're planning paid DLCs for it! If CryTek thinks that they will win over their main fan base with this patch, then they're very wrong. As someone said you cannot paint a rusty piece of machinery and pass it off as new and improved.
The bottomline: AT THE END OF THE DAY, CRYSIS 2 IS A SEQUEL TO CRYSIS, AND IT WILL BE JUDGED ACCORDINGLY.