I'm not going to rant about graphics or game play or anything. Just that fact that Consoles ruin PC gaming!

Consoles are the worst when multiple ports come out, e.g Battlefield Bad Company 2, made for all hardware, yet the PC version is severely lacking in the department of "Awesomeness". There are other games too, but I can't help feeling Crysis 2 is beginning to become one of them.

Consoles are becoming a bain to PC gamers and I reckon even Crytek is turning into a company that favours Consoles when I thought they favoured the PC gaming community.

I'm not having a dig or anything Crytek, I love you. But please don't become what most of us hate... Well what I hate anyways.

Another one of THESE threads -_-

Let this thread die

Yes, I agree the console are killing PC gaming. I dont understand why so many gamers are scared off by a simple install screen. There looking at it in the wrong light. AT LEAST I KNOW WHO IM PLAYING WITH HAD ENOUGH OF A BRAIN TO GET IT INSTALLED AND PATCHED. NOT SOME 8 YEAR OLD WHO JUS CAME OUTTA TOYS ARE US WENT HOME AND POPPED IT IN HIS KIDS HARDWARE CONSOLE. Thus...the end of fun in your multiplayer game....and the ever so used mute button as well....**** CONSOLES PC OWNS!!!!!

I actually heard somebody utter these words at my friends house, he said "I'm not smart enough for xbox live" I had to lol at that on the inside, didn't want to offend him.

I've owned all the consoles... Then I got a PC... Built it better and better. Upgraded it... T'was awesome... Bye bye consoles PC is in my heart now... Couple of years down the line... PC games start to suffer for pvssy console players.

im sorry but this is stupid. Consoles do not ruin PC gaming. Lazy developers do. there are PLENTY of multiplats that look WAY better play WAY better on PC than on console. Consoles dont do anything, who ever uses that excuse is technologically stupid. I could easily say people who cant afford $700+ PCs ruin PC gaming. just because they are inferior does not justify the means of making a certain version (PC) bad.

Look better sure, play better I beg to differ. I've played multiple ports on consoles and PC. The PC suffers.

your a little slow. What tipped you off to this...

"but I can't help feeling Crysis 2 is beginning to become one of them."

Maybe all the svck that this game is? All the obvious failures of this game due to console limitations...

im sorry but this is stupid. Consoles do not ruin PC gaming. Lazy developers do. there are PLENTY of multiplats that look WAY better play WAY better on PC than on console. Consoles dont do anything, who ever uses that excuse is technologically stupid. I could easily say people who cant afford $700+ PCs ruin PC gaming. just because they are inferior does not justify the means of making a certain version (PC) bad.


WRONG...you know why some pc game (like crysis 2 for example) have very blurry textures up close. While other Non-ported games (like crysis 1) have crystal clear textures!

Yours kids consoles are boggin us down. HOLDING US BACK FROM OUR NEXT GENERATION OF GAMING! While we sit and wait for you consoles to catch up....

^^^^^^ If this was Facebook, I would like this.

im sorry but this is stupid. Consoles do not ruin PC gaming. Lazy developers do. there are PLENTY of multiplats that look WAY better play WAY better on PC than on console. Consoles dont do anything, who ever uses that excuse is technologically stupid. I could easily say people who cant afford $700+ PCs ruin PC gaming. just because they are inferior does not justify the means of making a certain version (PC) bad.


WRONG...you know why some pc game (like crysis 2 for example) have very blurry textures up close. While other Non-ported games (like crysis 1) have crystal clear textures!

Yours kids consoles are boggin us down. HOLDING US BACK FROM OUR NEXT GENERATION OF GAMING! While we sit and wait for you consoles to catch up....

if anything you are wrong. Crytek did NOT develop this for console specifically, they developed this so more people can play it. if consoles were NEVER invented this would be the same issue. back to my "computer under $700 theory." if they developed this for EVERYONE to play and consoles were never invented crytek would have to contend to the people with $300 PCs. so this would be the SAME THING. they are contending to the weaker part of the plats so more people can play it. $300 PCs being consoles in my case.

im sorry but this is stupid. Consoles do not ruin PC gaming. Lazy developers do. there are PLENTY of multiplats that look WAY better play WAY better on PC than on console. Consoles dont do anything, who ever uses that excuse is technologically stupid. I could easily say people who cant afford $700+ PCs ruin PC gaming. just because they are inferior does not justify the means of making a certain version (PC) bad.


And...to further prove my point wasent the PS# $500 on release and the Xbox 360 was 400 Upon Release I belive...you can get a badass PC for that one way better than any console...so....your argument is PWNED! PC Gaming +1 Consoles 0

Single cause fallacy.

If PC gaming is in decline, then it is for a lot of reasons. Inability to compete with cheap, ubiquitous, user-friendly hardware is undoubtedly a part of it, but there are a lot more problems than that plaguing the PC platform. PC is an open platform so it's harder for developers to create stable and secure experiences which utilize it. Add in the fact that companies are spending more money than ever creating games which are easier than ever to steal, and it becomes clear why PC gaming is seemingly in decline.

Is PC gaming dying? No, I don't think it is. There's still plenty of profit to be made and lots of success stories out there, it's just that the bigger companies which rely on old economic models combined with big-budgets are going to trend towards the consoles because it gives them more control over their digital property.

Bottom line though: this move towards the consoles by Crytek shouldn't really shock anyone. They're owned by Electronic Arts, one of the biggest companies in the industry with a clear console preference. And everyone who's hoping and praying that Battlefield 3 is going to be a ticket back to PC-nostalgia-ville should take notice: DICE's full name is EA DICE.

im sorry but this is stupid. Consoles do not ruin PC gaming. Lazy developers do. there are PLENTY of multiplats that look WAY better play WAY better on PC than on console. Consoles dont do anything, who ever uses that excuse is technologically stupid. I could easily say people who cant afford $700+ PCs ruin PC gaming. just because they are inferior does not justify the means of making a certain version (PC) bad.


And...to further prove my point wasent the PS# $500 on release and the Xbox 360 was 400 Upon Release I belive...you can get a badass PC for that one way better than any console...so....your argument is PWNED! PC Gaming +1 Consoles 0

yea consoles did cost that much on release, and the funny thing a PC with the same specs cost the same, funny how that works.

im sorry but this is stupid. Consoles do not ruin PC gaming. Lazy developers do. there are PLENTY of multiplats that look WAY better play WAY better on PC than on console. Consoles dont do anything, who ever uses that excuse is technologically stupid. I could easily say people who cant afford $700+ PCs ruin PC gaming. just because they are inferior does not justify the means of making a certain version (PC) bad.


WRONG...you know why some pc game (like crysis 2 for example) have very blurry textures up close. While other Non-ported games (like crysis 1) have crystal clear textures!

Yours kids consoles are boggin us down. HOLDING US BACK FROM OUR NEXT GENERATION OF GAMING! While we sit and wait for you consoles to catch up....

if anything you are wrong. Crytek did NOT develop this for console specifically, they developed this so more people can play it. if consoles were NEVER invented this would be the same issue. back to my "computer under $700 theory." if they developed this for EVERYONE to play and consoles were never invented crytek would have to contend to the people with $300 PCs. so this would be the SAME THING. they are contending to the weaker part of the plats so more people can play it. $300 PCs being consoles in my case.

Well then Crytek could have stuck to its original communtity MADE THE PC LEAD PLATFORM THEN PORT IT TO CONSOLES! YOU WOULD STILL GET TO PLAY IT AND WE WOULD GET A PC GAME THAT LOOKS LIKE A PC GAME! INSTED THEY MADE 360 THE LEAD PLATFORM AND PORTED TO PC AND PS3...PWNED once again. PC gaming +2 Consoles -2

Single cause fallacy.

If PC gaming is in decline, then it is for a lot of reasons. Inability to compete with cheap, ubiquitous, user-friendly hardware is undoubtedly a part of it, but there are a lot more problems than that plaguing the PC platform. PC is an open platform so it's harder for developers to create stable and secure experiences which utilize it. Add in the fact that companies are spending more money than ever creating games which are easier than ever to steal, and it becomes clear why PC gaming is seemingly in decline.

Is PC gaming dying? No, I don't think it is. There's still plenty of profit to be made and lots of success stories out there, it's just that the bigger companies which rely on old economic models combined with big-budgets are going to trend towards the consoles because it gives them more control over their digital property.

Bottom line though: this move towards the consoles by Crytek shouldn't really shock anyone. They're owned by Electronic Arts, one of the biggest companies in the industry with a clear console preference. And everyone who's hoping and praying that Battlefield 3 is going to be a ticket back to PC-nostalgia-ville should take notice: DICE's full name is EA DICE.

Well said. Hit the nail on the head.

Well then Crytek could have stuck to its original communtity MADE THE PC LEAD PLATFORM THEN PORT IT TO CONSOLES! YOU WOULD STILL GET TO PLAY IT AND WE WOULD GET A PC GAME THAT LOOKS LIKE A PC GAME! INSTED THEY MADE 360 THE LEAD PLATFORM AND PORTED TO PC AND PS3...PWNED once again. PC gaming +2 Consoles -2In a few years from now when Crytek confirms that they made several times the profit from Crysis 2 that they made from Crysis 1, you'll see why they switched to the 360 being lead platform.

EDIT: I take no joy in this though. I wish PC had been the lead platform... I just understand why Crytek made that choice. Doesn't really justify the way they've crapped on their loyal fanbase though, but it's all about money

@xXHydroShockXx

then you clearly dont understand what crytek was trying to achieve. they were making it so EVERYONE can play it at max or very close to MAX setting. what part of EVERYONE do you not understand. whether or not they did it your way it would have turned out the same. also take consoles out of the equation, what about the people with $300 PCs. Crytek was attending to them as well.

Well then Crytek could have stuck to its original communtity MADE THE PC LEAD PLATFORM THEN PORT IT TO CONSOLES! YOU WOULD STILL GET TO PLAY IT AND WE WOULD GET A PC GAME THAT LOOKS LIKE A PC GAME! INSTED THEY MADE 360 THE LEAD PLATFORM AND PORTED TO PC AND PS3...PWNED once again. PC gaming +2 Consoles -2In a few years from now when Crytek confirms that they made several times the profit from Crysis 2 that they made from Crysis 1, you'll see why they switched to the 360 being lead platform.

EDIT: I take no joy in this though. I wish PC had been the lead platform... I just understand why Crytek made that choice. Doesn't really justify the way they've crapped on their loyal fanbase though, but it's all about money

Oh i totally agree. I understand why they did money makes the world go round right? But that dosent mean i have to like it. Which no Pc Gamer does..

@xXHydroShockXx

then you clearly dont understand what crytek was trying to achieve. they were making it so EVERYONE can play it at max or very close to MAX setting. what part of EVERYONE do you not understand. whether or not they did it your way it would have turned out the same. also take consoles out of the equation, what about the people with $300 PCs. Crytek was attending to them as well.

HHHHHH....And you cleary dident read what i just said. They could have made PC lead platform, Then port it to the consoles aka downgrade it insted of downgrading all together. itd be like Ford or Honda saying they gunna build there cars with no steroes or A/C and no more sport or luxury models because they wanna make it cheaper and more accecisble to everyone.

Your logic makes no sense and i just killed it.

Bottom line though: this move towards the consoles by Crytek shouldn't really shock anyone. They're owned by Electronic Arts, one of the biggest companies in the industry with a clear console preference. And everyone who's hoping and praying that Battlefield 3 is going to be a ticket back to PC-nostalgia-ville should take notice: DICE's full name is EA DICE.

Actually PC is being the head system for the Battlefield 3. They're taking back the routes of the famous Battlefield 2.

@xXHydroShockXx

then you clearly dont understand what crytek was trying to achieve. they were making it so EVERYONE can play it at max or very close to MAX setting. what part of EVERYONE do you not understand. whether or not they did it your way it would have turned out the same. also take consoles out of the equation, what about the people with $300 PCs. Crytek was attending to them as well.

HHHHHH....And you cleary dident read what i just said. They could have made PC lead platform, Then port it to the consoles aka downgrade it insted of downgrading all together. itd be like Ford or Honda saying they gunna build there cars with no steroes or A/C and no more sport or luxury models because they wanna make it cheaper and more accecisble to everyone.

Your logic makes no sense and i just killed it.

wtf is wrong with you, did you not read my post!? let me quote myself. "whether or not they did it your way it would have turned out the same." you clearly missed that sentence. it doesn't matter what way they did it, it would have been the same. also let me quote myself AGAIN! "also take consoles out of the equation, what about the people with $300 PCs. Crytek was attending to them as well." you clearly missed that as well.

its not my logic its cryteks logic that would svck. TAKE A WRITING CLASS. i am simply stating cryteks logic, non of this is my logic.

Bottom line though: this move towards the consoles by Crytek shouldn't really shock anyone. They're owned by Electronic Arts, one of the biggest companies in the industry with a clear console preference. And everyone who's hoping and praying that Battlefield 3 is going to be a ticket back to PC-nostalgia-ville should take notice: DICE's full name is EA DICE.

Actually PC is being the head system for the Battlefield 3. They're taking back the routes of the famous Battlefield 2.

Yep cant wait hope it gets GOTY but know it prolly wont not commerical enough like...black ops per say.

@xXHydroShockXx

then you clearly dont understand what crytek was trying to achieve. they were making it so EVERYONE can play it at max or very close to MAX setting. what part of EVERYONE do you not understand. whether or not they did it your way it would have turned out the same. also take consoles out of the equation, what about the people with $300 PCs. Crytek was attending to them as well.

HHHHHH....And you cleary dident read what i just said. They could have made PC lead platform, Then port it to the consoles aka downgrade it insted of downgrading all together. itd be like Ford or Honda saying they gunna build there cars with no steroes or A/C and no more sport or luxury models because they wanna make it cheaper and more accecisble to everyone.

Your logic makes no sense and i just killed it.

wtf is wrong with you, did you not read my post!? let me quote myself. "whether or not they did it your way it would have turned out the same." you clearly missed that sentence. it doesn't matter what way they did it, it would have been the same. also let me quote myself AGAIN! "also take consoles out of the equation, what about the people with $300 PCs. Crytek was attending to them as well." you clearly missed that as well.

its not my logic its cryteks logic that would svck. TAKE A WRITING CLASS. i am simply stating cryteks logic, non of this is my logic.

lol the only person who belivies its true that if pc would have been lead platform it would have come out the same...NOT A CHANCE IN HELL. You have just proven you are an idiot. There wouldent be blurry up close textuers, The water wouldent look like ****. (Take crysis 1 water for example) youv just proven to everyone in this room, you know jack ****.

@xXHydroShockXx

then you clearly dont understand what crytek was trying to achieve. they were making it so EVERYONE can play it at max or very close to MAX setting. what part of EVERYONE do you not understand. whether or not they did it your way it would have turned out the same. also take consoles out of the equation, what about the people with $300 PCs. Crytek was attending to them as well.

HHHHHH....And you cleary dident read what i just said. They could have made PC lead platform, Then port it to the consoles aka downgrade it insted of downgrading all together. itd be like Ford or Honda saying they gunna build there cars with no steroes or A/C and no more sport or luxury models because they wanna make it cheaper and more accecisble to everyone.

Your logic makes no sense and i just killed it.

wtf is wrong with you, did you not read my post!? let me quote myself. "whether or not they did it your way it would have turned out the same." you clearly missed that sentence. it doesn't matter what way they did it, it would have been the same. also let me quote myself AGAIN! "also take consoles out of the equation, what about the people with $300 PCs. Crytek was attending to them as well." you clearly missed that as well.

its not my logic its cryteks logic that would svck. TAKE A WRITING CLASS. i am simply stating cryteks logic, non of this is my logic.

and it is your logic because your the one defending it so you must have some reason , predispostion, *AHEM* Fanboyism, ECT.