I seriously have to chime in on this debate (: I have been reading through a crap ton (very scientific measure of quanity) of post pertaining to Crysis 2 and I have seen a TON of rage post against Crytek. So I figured I would at least pitch in my 2 cents for whatever it is worth.
I am a console gamer, I don't even own a PC that can play any respectable PC games (yet). I am planning on delving into the PC gaming circle sometime this summer once I get the cash for a rig. From what I have gathered so far, you guys are seriously spoiled. I can say that even the beta version of Crysis 2 looks far better than any other console games that I have ever played. Also, great graphics are not a requirement for engaging gameplay. Hell, people still play the socks off of the original Mario and tons of NES/SNES games. The CORE of a game is overall enjoyability, engaging plot lines and good gameplay. The graphics are simple a spice to the overall experience. Just because a game doesn't look like real life means it shouldn't be played? Ha, back in the days of Goldeneye 64 would you all have been so picky? Because graphics now do not even resemble graphics then and yet people still find reason to play these games.
Now, romanticizing games aside, from what I have read there is a LOT of misinformation going around. This is what, through my reading, I have aquired. (BTW, if I am wrong PLEASE tell me because I, for one, don't want to spread false information and get torched
1. The Crysis PC demo wasn't even supposed to exist yet the developer ported a version as fast as they could so that PC gamers could have a taste of the game.
2. The CEO of Crytek announced that PC gamers are still very dear to Crytek and that this game would improve upon Crysis in graphics and in gameplay.
3. Nvidia invested a LOT of money in Crytek and both parties have been rather hush hush about the game.
Number 3 is of particular interest because why would a premier graphics card company invest money in a developer without any benefits to itself? It wouldn't. The logical conclusion to be reached by considering this tid bit of information is that Nvidia will use Crysis 2 to promote its GPU's and you can't promote a GPU if a game isn't beefy enough to demand it. Thus, Crysis 2 must have some seriously graphical weight up its sleeve if the GTX 590 and Crysis 2 are arriving around the same day. On the other hand, they could be extremely retarded and that be the complete opposite of the truth.
Basically, I think that a lot of people are in a tizzy but when the game releases I am sure it will be nothing short of amazing because, after all, Crytek does have a reputation to uphold. Though you cannot argue that it is a good business decision to make a game less demanding thus widening your user base thus increasing your profits thus prolonging your life as a company thus leading to more great productions. At the end of the day this games demo still looks better than any console game that I have ever played and PC gamers need to stop being so gosh darn judgemental because even though PC is COMPLETELY dominant graphically, all the games are still games and people still play them. They are just played through different mediums. It is like a Ferrari and a Kia, both are cars, both are in two different classes and yet there is still a human behind the wheel. blargity blah blargity, my two cents and 15 minutes worth of rambling.