Originally Posted by lordikon
They didn't ignore PC gamers, they made a game that is better looking on the PC than on the consoles. That's all you get.
Wait, you expected them to do more than that? Why would you expect more than that? It doesn't financially make any sense.
Turns out the game is still fun, regardless of the graphics settings or DX11 support. So why is everyone butthurt about it?
Far Cry and Crysis were the 2 most recent games that pushed PC hardware forward. In PC gaming there is
a culture of graphics fidelity, especially on PC AAA FPS games. It's been this way since Carmack pushed PCs to the limit with the original blockbuster FPSs like Doom, Quake I+II+III, and Doom 3.
Crytek absolutely wanted this title. Far Cry and Crysis were known for graphics more so than gameplay, and that's in large part due to Crytek's marketing pushes and work on graphics.
The latest sequel looks worse than it's 4 year old predecessor, doesn't take advantage of modern APIs, and has low-res textures that fill up 25% of a modern mid-high end GPU.
It's a slap in the face to the PC community, that's why we care.