I feel like this thread is going to explode. No offense, but there's no point to this. Whoever feels strongly enough will make a thread about it anyway... also, it might be against OCN etiquette to plaster OFFICIAL on a random thread.
As for the thread, I'll just quote myself from about five minutes ago (see what I mean by pointless? there are craptons of conversations regarding this all around OCN).
Originally Posted by EfemaN
I had high hopes for Crysis 2. After watching nanosuitninja on youtube, I went and played through Crysis and Warhead a couple weeks ago; I never realized how fun that game actually was! Pair that with the graphics, and I felt that it was a winner. Crysis 2 is nowhere near a proper successor. I haven't completely given up hope, but I'm waiting for price drops.
Doesn't have the Crysis feel. No DX11 at launch. Looks nowhere near as good as the originals. No graphics controls; I refuse to count the three general settings. Plays like Call of Duty (subjective, I know. But garbage for a veteran PC gamer).
Little things like "Press Start to Play" and the "TV settings" adjustment tip; it's nowhere near significant and I couldn't care less, but didn't Crytek say we would be getting our own version? Unless only the demo was ported for simplicity (unlikely), it's laziness on their part. BF3 is developing separately.
Originally Posted by XxRZxX
Crysis 2 is a horrible PC port isn't it? It's way more cpu intensive than it should be.
Console* port is the proper term. My argument is more that it looks worse than the original, and doesn't run much smoother. If it was a beta, then I could understand. But it's a demo, as in representative of the final product.Edited by EfemaN - 3/5/11 at 12:30am