@waldemar2

its true. the story in the first one was terrible, voice acting was awful, story was predictable etc. if the game did not have the visuals it would not have sold nearly as much. the visuals was one of the main attractions to the game. everything else was just bad.

But in 2007 When Crysis came out you needed a $4000 PC.

And first of all you're calling it lightning (you know the thing that happens during a thunderstorm). Secondly, the only thing better about Crysis 1 was it's physics and in some cases textures (Crysis had its fair share of ugly textures as well.). With stuff like Global Illumination and Defreered Lighting how can you say Lighting is better LOL?

And Crysis had amazing gameplay too. In what other game could you grab a Korean, jump 10 feet high, blow up a vehicle, while taking shots from all sides at the same time? You could enjoy Crysis at lowest settings.

Anybody that's played this on a console will be able to tell that the PC version is vastly superior - The 'console port' comments I can't understand. It's a multi-platform engine scaled to work across multiple platforms. It's a PS3 port and it's an Xbox 360 port in the same way as the console versions are a PC port. It's all the same engine.

As far as design is concerned? Well all I can tell you is I'm having a lot more fun with C2's single player than C1, it runs a hell of a lot better and overall looks brilliant on my rather humble rig.

When Crysis came out, I seem to remember everybody complaining about the rig that you needed to run it, and the complaints about it being hideously unoptimised. Now they've released a game that runs absolutely brilliant on not so up-to-date hardware, everyone's complaining it's not pushing limits.

You just can't win.

even in 2007 you did not need $4000. the bloom effects in Crysis 2 are WAY to overdone, looks like ****. for the most part crysis 1 had better lighting than the second. the lighting in the first one had its problems but at least when it worked it looked more natural than the second one did.

I totally aggree to the starting post, everyone that blame this game so much should get together and make an own(maybe with the upcoming sanbox 3?) and then the whole community should rate it and say what they thing right into their face, cmon do it! you get as much time as crytek needed to make crysis 2, would be interesting, if you know everything so much better and if you think you know where the problems are and if you think it so damn horrible, then PLEASE HELP US AND MAKE A BETTER ONE. when i see how you talk about this game i have to think that you may think that you know how to make it better...THEN SHOW IT!!!

I think the big problem here is that Crytek LIED his PC costumers.

The game can be fixed with patches but there is not fix for the trust they had losed with this game.

OMG someone with logic on this forum! Completely agree OP :)

ill do, give me 3 years and 7 millions dollars. thats roughly what crytek had.

They lied about what?

For clarity, can you specify exactly what they lied about, and the source of the broken promises from Crytek themselves please?

Oh make sure it has a decent story. Gameplay was fine but Crysis 1 story was total crap. Actually no gameplay was **** too. Warhead had good gameplay. But was way too short. Crysis 2 has good gameplay and a good story, the most important components of a game. Let's see what you come up with. I'll give you a week to design an epic plot for your version of Crysis 2 set in the Lingshan isnlands.