snip
Silenthps
Ok, I'm going to have to break this down into text quotes, because GameSpot won't let me use anymore than three. I don't know why it is allowing you, but it errases any more than three for me.
"It was the first line in my post, responding to the first line of your post... shoulda been obvious. GJ finding a way to dodge the question though."
What part of my post that particular line was responding to wasn't indicated, so it was my impression it was directed towards Crysis 2. After all you went on to talk about Crysis 2 in the next paragraph, again calling it a conspiracy theory that consoles were the cause of specified changes. The response I gave wasn't an attempt to dodge the question, it was an expression frustration, at just how many times I have had to explain why consoles are the cause of the game being converted to streaming.
"Nope, thats conspiracy theory to the T. You're taking your technical knowledge, rejecting the official story and basically calling Crytek liars, and trying to create a new theory as to why they really chose a city. I'm not saying your theory doesn't seem reasonable or somewhat logical, but it is making a logical error of assuming that correlation is the same thing as causation. And it is not more logical than the official story that they were getting tired of jungles and wanted to try something new."
That consoles are responsible for the game being converted to a cell streaming based memory management model, isn't a theory; it is a technical fact. That cities repetitive, low to mid poly, and restrict-able navigation make them the perfect environments for streaming is also not a theory. As I have repeatedly said, Crytek did a 180 on the games story the moment consoles became involved. You keep telling me that had nothing to do with consoles, but these are too many coincidences for me to ignore.
To me it is a simple matter of what you prefer to be true that has you siding with the offical line. I don't know why it is so difficult to believe that a company wishing to sell to a new audience, wouldn't start out by blaiming that audience for things being changed.
"No, you're a hypocrite because in one place you see limitations as a bad thing and in another you see it as a good thing.
And here you go again with the conspiracies. Crytek has already told us why they made the control decisions. Yes they said part of the reason is building leaping but they also said it was due to what they've seen from PC gamers. But since you like theorizing I'll do the same and say theystreamlined the controls so they can attract all the casual mainstream PC gamers."
The scale restrictions are imposed by hardware limitations that previously didn't exist, that is why they are bad. They are not part of Crytek's intended design for Crysis, they made that clear in the video I posted earlier. The controls of the original however were part of Crytek's intended design, they wouldn't have used them in the original and expansion if that wasn't the case. This streamlining is a decision made post Crysis, one that only makes sense given the new environment, an environment as I have previously stated I believe to be the result of console involvement.
I'm not a hypocrite for recognising the difference between restrictions and choices. They didn't have a choice when it came to cell streaming, consoles demand it, but with the suit there were options. I see a deviation from the original design, one that only makes sense in this new environment.
"No that was not the direction they wanted to go. They wanted to start over because the story of Crysis 1 sucked, which is why they hired Richard Morgan. Yes, the fact that it's on consoles was yet another reason. But it was just fuel to an already burning fire, consoles aren't the sole reason."
The only press releases they provide now have consoles involvement. Public relations dictates they will adapt their behaviour to suit new requirements, those requirements being the addition of a new platform and audience. It would be a public relations mistake to start out by complaining about all the things consoles are restricting, given that they are trying to appeal to this broader audience.
I consider all Crytek's press releases post Crysis 2's announcement to be under the influence of appealing to the console audience. They were more honest about console limitations prior to the Crysis 2 cross platform announcement.
"The only problem is that the ONLY system I game on is PC and the only console bias I have is towards the Wii. I'm not a console apologist I'm just being non-bias. If anything, I'm a Crytek apologist thats mad that you're basically calling one of my favorite developers a liar.
You, on the other hand, are incredibly blinded by your PC elitist bias. Every fact you ever hear about Crysis 2 is filtered through anti-console glasses that forces you to see things that are not the actual story. You're jealous of console gamers getting your precious PC exclusive so you hate on everything you see about the game."
Why would I be jealous of a audience playing an inferior version of a already inferior game? I'm sure Crysis 2 will have it's own merits, but it is not a worthy sequel. All I'm seeing is a repeat of Far Cry Instincts, which is fundamentally changing everything that has come to be expected of the game; and then pretending like it's how they intended.
Crysis 2 is, by the developers admission, a more linear and scripted game. It has lost the open environments the developers previously stated were part of the intended experience of Crysis 1, it has lost its human enemies in exchange for big bulky mecha enemies. The developers attempted to show off the game was still open; by kicking a perfectly placed car hanging just above a enemy turret...
I don't recognise one of my favourite games any more, as a Crysis fan; this upsets me. And wherever I look, the logic leads me to consoles. Complaining about these changes won't change that, but I'll be damned if I'm told to be quiet by people who apparently didn't even care about the previous game. I'd had people who HATED Crysis; say they are looking forward to Crysis 2, because it looks more like the sort of games they do like.
"I'm exaggerating your position into absurdity to show that your position is absurd. Thats exactly what a reductio ad absurdum is.
Your position on Crysis MUST be applied to everything in order for it to make sense. When you say that your views on progress is that it maintains the achievements of the previous game, you are presupposing that Crysis made achievements to something. Therefore, progress must be judged on the context of that something. That something could be things like level design, graphics, gameplay, technology or gaming as a whole. For me it's gaming as a whole but for you it seems to be technology. And if it is technology then my reductio ad adsurdum stands."
Nonsense, what I say about Crysis is only relevant in regard to Crysis. Taking things I say out of context is an attempt to discredit them without actually discrediting them. You discredit the exaggeration; rather than its original intended meaning. Otherwise known as a straw man if I recall correctly.
Log in to comment