Crytek is already 'tired' of current generation consoles; 'PC is allowing us to push so much more'

DSOGaming writes: "Crytek is well known for pushing the graphical boundaries as both Far Cry and Crysis 1 were - visually - way ahead of their time. However, their decision to start developing multiplatform titles seems to have backfired, as the company is not considered the pioneers of PC graphics. And it seems that's one of the reason why the company is already tired of current generation consoles and is really looking forward to the next generation era"

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Godmars2902383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

I'm tired of PC devs complaining about console limitations when they haven't done much with them. Just one or two games while pushing a graphics engine they're trying to make the next UE3. Which itself wasn't all that.

I'm sure within a few years they'll be complaining about the PS4 and Next Box.

Mariusmssj2383d ago

It's not complains but real thoughts, Obviously guys like naughty dog and others have pushed consoles to their true limits and gotten some amazing results! But if your making a muyltiplatform game the console limitations comes apparent. I don't think it's fair to compare Consoles to PC's as consoles are static whiles PC's are dynamic and always changing.

sikbeta2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

New HW is needed, we all want that, but Epic and Crytek are not excited about new HW per se... gotta push harder to get as many devs as they can and license the s#*t out of their Middleware Engines for PC and CONSOLES :P

C0MPUT3R2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

Crysis should just make their games on PC only & shut up.

ProjectVulcan2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

One can hope that they would design it for a modern PC. Then everyone else will agree with them after seeing that game....

They are a cutting edge PC developer that is their roots. Of course they want the latest shinest hardware to play with. Now they are partnered with EA however, they have no choice but to cater for the lowest denominator- consoles.

I for one would love to see them ditch consoles again and build brand new cutting edge PC games to push that frontier, but EA are unlikely to be interested in it.

SilentNegotiator2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )


That's a great idea! They can make a game that only enthusiasts can run well on only PC!!!

....oh wait, they already tried that and weren't happy enough with the sales.

I guess you can cater to the enthusiasts with unrealistic games that you spend dozens of millions of dollars developing, or you can create realistic games for most to play and have a much more profitable business.

Oh, and Cevat Yerli was "disappointed" with sales......and blamed PC PIRACY! They claimed that the reason for leaving PC exclusivity. So I guess you can have a 'limitation' of sales or a 'limitation' of game.

LOL, silly Crytek. Make up your hypocritical minds.

"Of course they want the latest shinest hardware to play with. Now they are partnered with EA however, they have no choice but to cater for the lowest denominator- consoles"
Cevat Yerli said himself that they wouldn't be making PC exclusives anymore, blaming PC piracy for not meeting their "hopes". Don't try to pin this on EA. Sure, EA releases on the consoles because they actually have a sense of business, unlike elitists that think developers can spend millions of dollars developing a game and make their money back just from the top % buying their games. But don't blame EA when Crytek has said loud and clear that they blame PC exclusivity for "disappointing" sales.

ProjectVulcan2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

I don't care what you think of my 'idea' SilentNegotiator. First post below you are bitching about them, saying they keep catering to consoles. As if it is their choice.

You totally fell for the spin put into the title and got indignant for no reason. You didn't read the quotes in the article. Please read the article before you reply anymore....

Then you come here and criticise my wish and hope of them going back to being PC only. You're being a total idiot aren't you?

I know the reality of it, I know WHY Crytek are pretty much compelled to make games for consoles right now. But you babbling on a bunch of useless crap in reply to me because you are looking for attention makes you seem preposterous. Especially considering you are just stating the obvious!

I would much prefer a developer like Crytek flex their muscles where they are really happy and comfortable. Building a top end PC game. Of course they ported Crysis much much later to console- after it had sold over 3 million copies on PC.....

So why not just build an absolutely kickass PC game and really push the limits, then port it to a next gen console capable of doing it justice in say 18 months. They aren't far away now. Much like how they did with Far Cry in fact.

It is always boring to hear moaners like you say they would only build a game for the enthusiasts, as if lowering settings doesn't work. Crysis on merely 'medium' was still pretty much superior to everything around on console at that point.

Crysis stimulated PC hardware sales and growth, interest in the platform. People went out and bought new hardware over the months and years after its launch to specifically run it better than they could before.

It gave other devs a benchmark to aim for, to raise themselves up and beat. Thats good. Thats fine by me.

Computersaysno2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

Yep crytek should go and explore the limit of pc hardware again. I wanna see it 2. Then just like you said it can be moved over to a new console later as a launch game. Least they got everything in place and a ready made game for next gen consoles.

I dont think crysis 2 was anything but a poorer game because it was made for console. Cant help shrug off the feeling the whole game would have been a lot better had it not been designed for consoles in the first place.

They did say they are gonna push the console hardware as much as possible. Silentnegothingy didnt see that written in the link before he went apeshit?

Also build up their pc tech as well. Sounds good to me. Pushing that gets them closer to next gen standards anyway doesnt it! Good to get a headstart.

DragonKnight2383d ago

I'm tired of developers whose idea of "progress" and "innovation" is "we need teh better grfx." The Crysis series in NO WAY breaks from the mould. There's nothing unique or innovative about it. It has impressive visuals, and that's about it. PC devs like to b*tch and moan about console limitations, but very few do anything innovative when they do get unlimited platform resources beyond "upping the rez" or some other visual aspect of it.

If you don't like the consoles, don't develop for them. Trust me, we're not going to miss you Crytek. With so many other developers and so many other games from companies who actually want our money and aren't busy talking down to us, you won't register in our thoughts if you go.

ProjectVulcan2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

I think it is ridiculous to point out PC devs as the ones causing problems in the industry by asking for better performance. Not all PC devs ask for more power all the time. Many of the truly innovative, class indie titles are born on PC. It is by far and away the very best platform for smaller devs to flesh out their innovative and superb little games, that aren't even technologically oriented.

One glance at PC shows up gems like Superbrothers, Realm of the Mad God, Legend of Grimrock, Botanicula etc and these are just this year....Let alone massive massive stuff like Minecraft. PC is THE hotbed of genuinely fresh titles free of major publisher meddling to try and maximise profitability and curtail freedom of creativity.

If anything it is many console developers being complacent and churning most crap to make money knowing console is the money pit. That holds gaming back a lot of the time.

Crytek are just another PC developer who wants to realise their ambitions and shouldn't be criticised for that really. I want to see ambition to push hardware alongside the devs that are pushing other areas.

If it weren't for people willing to do that you wouldn't have the consoles you have now.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2383d ago
SilentNegotiator2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

And yet they keep catering to them.

They didn't even launch Crysis 2 with DX11 or high resolution textures (not to mention, they made the game more closed up and linear). They're making an exclusive Xbox 360 Kinect game. They brought the "impossible for consoles" game of Crysis 1 to consoles.

There will ALWAYS be limitations because the bar needs to be set low for this to be a money-making industry. If you ONLY want to cater to the top my guest. But you won't have a fun time trying to stay afloat while you spent 20+ million on development costs and only have the elite buying your games.

Admit it, Crytech; you wouldn't be half as big if you didn't make the jump to consoles. If you didn't make Crysis 2 more linear and closed up to make it possible for more people to run on their lower-end PCs (granting 'technological inflation', lol), sales would be much lower.

Arnon2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

I'm confused here. You're stating that if they only develop for the PC, it can only cater to a small percentage of players because of it's graphics. That would be the case if graphical settings were static and could not be customized. Building ANYTHING on the PC caters to ANYONE who has an entry level gaming computer, which is a LARGE demographic.

Just because Crysis looks better on the PC, doesn't mean it has to be played on max settings. Hell, medium settings would still blow consoles out of the water.

Nice try, though.

SilentNegotiator2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

"I'm confused here. You're stating that if they only develop for the PC, it can only cater to a small percentage of players because of it's graphics"

Not at all. They're complaining because they can't do things that "can't" be done on consoles (like the first *Crysis). And consoles are like lower level PCs.

If it "can't be done" on consoles, it "can't be done" on those lower range PCs.

However lower range PCs and consoles make a MASSIVE part of the gaming industry.

You took my comment WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of context, mah boy.

Nice try, though.


"Hell, medium settings would still blow consoles out of the water"
Yes, and there is a MASSIVE difference between graphics processing and the processing for the backbone parts of gameplay. You could chop down any game's graphics however you wanted, but that doesn't mean Crysis would run on a SNES just because you brought the graphics down to 16-bit level. It would still burst into flames just trying to do physics calculations. The point is whether or not the console has the power to do THOSE things, not be pretty.

Paragon2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

Am I missing something? Where in the article did it say that Crytek said they are 'tired' of current-gen consoles?

*Shrugs* I dunno, but that 'spin' to the title makes it seem like something else...

(In response to the article title)

Godmars2902383d ago

By the two quotes used that's basically what Crytek is saying. That to the best of their ability they've pushed a multiplatform engine as far as they can on current consoles.

That said effort essentially boils down to only one game - if you consider Crysis 2 a tweaked Crysis 1, which was also re-engineered and put on consoles - is besides the point. The controversy surrounding them over graphics is also something Crytek isn't thinking about as they've pretty much failed, and try to move on.

They haven't done much if anything for gaming in general except create hype which they failed to live up to.

@SilentNegotiator: You mean the Kinect game they announced for the 360 but have moved to the Next Box?

GamingPerson2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

You mean pc devs like ubisoft?

You can't compare a developer who has an easy job working on one platform to those who need to optimize for ps3, 360, pc, wiiU, 3DS and now mobile.

Your comment is bullshit! How many pc devs ahve been saying this? Valve? no.. Blizzard? no.. Bohemia? no.. Most pc devs are not even spending much time on consoles. Also Cytek is not a pc dev anymore crysis is now a linear console game. Where have you been?

Dice would have a right to say this and it's the reason consoles don't have 1080p, 64 players, 60fps and can run on high settings.

Even sony have pushed pass ps3 with planetside 2.

stuna12383d ago

It's comments like this that crytek was just blowing smoke up peoples ar$es, considering what they had to say about the WII U tech! Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the WII U is not a step in the right direction, it's just not what they touted it to be...

Which furthers my point of why third party developers make such baseless claims! That if theres a potential for money to be made, they'll sell ice cubes to an eskimo.

We as gamers should require proof when such claims are made.

Dms20122383d ago

I am tired of people fooling themselves into thinking current generation consoles have anything left under the hood. I am sick of this console lifecycle and want new consoles NOW, not 2 years from now. And yes, I have seen footage of new games coming out and while they look great, they pale in comparison to what we will be seeing.

ATi_Elite2383d ago

1. Crytek STFU!

2. if your so tired of this console Gen then why did you go all out your way to kiss the consoles arse with that CRAPPY console game Crysis 2.

3. I think Crysis 3 will be just as console crappy

4. You haven't done Jack Shhh on the PC since Crysis

5. you tried to make the CryEngine 3 super console friendly like the Unreal Engine BUT no one is using it but you guys.

6. Go back to being a hardcore PC dev and maybe you will get your dignity back

7. Warface for the PC does look good. OMG imagine that a Crytek PC exclusive that looks good.

8. Stick to the PC and just leave the consoles alone cause all that "Easy Console Money" means you guys can just make CRAP and get a pay check!!!

ReservoirDog3162383d ago

I just think it's kinda sad that they think all developers are as rich as them. Current gen console development prices are already too much for a lot of studios to handle.

Lazy_Sunday2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

Console limitations are pretty huge when you have to develop a cross-platform title. Due to demand and cost of development, it's impossible to code a game for both consoles that hits the quality barrier of an exclusive game because of all differences in hardware.

Consoles are really out of date though, you should know that the Xbox 360 is 6 years old and the PS3 is 5 years old. CryEngine and Frostbite don't run at even medium quality on consoles, they have to be heavily down-coded to even run at 29FPS. You should be tired of hearing it, especially because of how quickly technology evolves and how slowly the consoles have followed it.

Now for some technical jargon: The new line of Nvidia 600 series GPUs just launched and it's midrange GPU (the GTX670) is literally 10 times more powerful than the Xbox 360's GPU (240:2500GFLOPS, 337:3540 million Transistors, etc.). Yes, the exact 360 GPU gets a lot more performance than it's PC counterpart, but the point is that it's not lower than 1/10th the power of midrange of new PC graphics--lets not even get into the CPU or the PS3's CPU, because they're both so outdated now it's not even funny. My Macbook AIR runs games at PS3 performance levels and it's two years old. The new Intel HD 3000 integrated chip in $400 laptops runs Skyrim better than a PS3 does, and it's the weakest GPU on the market. Crysis 2 ran at 23FPS on consoles.

I don't want consoles to grow up, because re-assuredly, PC gaming has gained a ton of traction, and it's the biggest it's been since consoles haven't stepped up in the last two years, modders make incredible content, and Steam is a revelation. ...I still own consoles, but the last time I was playing a game it was on a PC or Mac running bootcamp.

You know why you weren't jumping out of your chair when Sony or Microsoft's E3 press conference ended? Because none of their games looked any better than something you've seen before, and if it did it rain at a very low framerate, and if there was something new it was something gimmicky or lame. Even the exclusives that improved on graphics this year are dropping framerates like mad--Last of Us, Halo 4, and Beyond--and all the games that excited you at the Ubisoft and EA conferences were running on next-gen spec PCs played with 360 controllers: FarCry 3, Watch Dogs, Medal of Honor, and yes, Crysis 3.

Oh, to answer the question N4G, why doesn't Activision improve it's cash-cow CoD? Because if they improved the graphics and code, their games would stop being as responsive and fun because the consoles can't handle any more power than a 2006 engine running at 600p with simple kill/respawn box hit detection--not even 720p!

Consoles are old, the only reason you're tired of it is because you simply don't see it.

...look, it's not that I hate consoles, I just hate ignorance. I hope you learned something, and if you didn't--and I'm sure to get some disagrees--I really should keep posting on Kotaku, where my opinion actually gets some constructive criticism and people actually understand logic.

DragonKnight2383d ago

I was going to make an actual reply, but then I saw this...

"I really should keep posting on Kotaku, where my opinion actually gets some constructive criticism and people actually understand logic."

That's when I knew your argument didn't matter, no matter what you were saying. The words Kotaku, constructive criticism, and logic do not co-exist. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Lazy_Sunday2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

Go to the discussions section on Kotaku. Every page isn't full of passive aggressive trolls, and long pagers are followed with constructive advocation from other users. Look at any argument. I just pulled this up, random responses on Kotaku:

"It's hard to disagree with this. Nice article.

I thought Watch Dogs was extremely cool. I definitely want to get it. But I thought people were really overreacting a bit. At the end of the day, it's fine. They wanted to get hyped about something, so I don't care. But I agree with your assessment of how that all played out."

"My biggest problems with E3 isn't the fact that less is being revealed, it's the fact that half they time they don't give any hint to a release date as many refuse to even release the year in which it will be released. Also we get games and tech revealed years before they are going to be released. What's the point in revealing the Wii U last year even though it probably won't even come out before the next E3 seeing as most of the hype will be lost."

"I think the real problem is that the audience has changed; or rather, not changed, but grown a great deal. It's been significantly expanded, such that hardcore gamers have been minimalized. The big money is in casual gaming now, in a mainstream audience. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are no longer talking to *us* anymore, they're talking to everyone else. Smart Glass isn't interesting to the Halo fan, it's interesting to the father who reads about it in the newspaper the next day. E3 wastes all this time on features that gamers are already tech-savvy enough to rig themselves, on games for Kinect and other motion devices that we'll never play because they're simply too shallow, and mobile games that are short-lived novelties at best. E3 just isn't for us hardcore anymore; the industry has moved on. They'll fill the trough with the usual suspects (God of War, Halo, Call of Duty, Mario/Zelda/Metroid/Whatever) to keep the hardcore fed, but then focus most of their efforts on capitalizing on the new, much more massive market.

Think about it. The best selling books, the highest grossing films, the most popular albums; these aren't the cream of the crop, they're the trash that's mass produced for consumption that know-no-betters buy. And now, that time has come for gaming. We'll have to resort to whatever the equivalent of a gaming Art House is to get our gaming fix. At least, until the casual market finally falters, or enough casual gamers become hardcore, or it simply becomes plain ol' cheaper to make hardcore games.

That's my two cents."

That is the first article I clicked on. Those are three out of what is probably 30 replies and those were the first I found, I didn't even have to look very hard. Well formulated arguments encompass the site, it's not often you see them around here. I thought everyone already knew the common knowledge that if you want to have a logical gaming discussion, Kotaku is your best bet. Every comment I've made there gets at least 1 or 2 long replies, and no, they're not JesusChrist nonsense (seewutIdidthar?)

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 2383d ago
2383d ago Replies(1)
Intentions2383d ago

Thing is, is that no PC developer is actually pushing the graphics [on pc]. Since there are so many graphics card out there with different specs, same goes with the other PC specs. Everything is different so they can't optimise it.

but it actually isn't really much of a difference unless you actually do a side by side comparison or if you game on a pc, then you will actually see enhanced changes.

Example: Have you seen any PC only developers actually pushing it to its limits (graphics and performance wise).

Godmars2902383d ago

Are you forgetting Doom 4 much less Crysis? It was that those games required expensive bleeding edge upgrades at the time they first came out that the "Death of PC Gaming" argument started.

PC devs want malleable, modular platforms, but are oblivious to the cost this represents to consumers. That's why consoles became popular when early PCs costs in the thousands. Are still technically a better alternative even though you can now find PCs that are far cheaper than something like the PS3, but consoles are still easier to use.

xX TriiCKy Xx2383d ago

Doom 4 was released already? o_O

stuna12383d ago

For Doom I agree, but for Crysis I'd say unoptimized coding was more to blame! Which is IMO why they were able to put Crysis 1 on the box360 and PS3, because they had to rework everything. Though it's nowhere as visually stunning on consoles as it is on pc's.

ninjahunter2383d ago

Well, The problem is that if you cater to the ultra high setting computers you are going to alienate Mid range computer users When witcher 2 first came out, a good hanful of people had trouble running it because it virtually required a quad core.

Right now the current generation of consoles is holding back the current generations of engines, and thats holding back the high end PC market. But in the next few years there is a significant payload of high end games coming out, now im not saying their going to make a gtx 680 cry, but i feel like at least on PC theres going to be a new graphics king every year.

The game lineup for pc is looking very good right now as far as taking advantage of PC power, almost all notable games that i follow at least are having very notable DX11 support.

Optical_Matrix2383d ago

After seeing The Last of Us, I couldn't care what lazy PC developers think about consoles. Crytek is one of the laziest of them all in fact. If you don't like what consoles offer then don't develop for them. It's not like your mediocre, generic shooters with pretty visual effects are in hot demand anyway.

LightofDarkness2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

Low res textures, low poly geometry with buckets of aliasing, a dearth of environmental effects and static world detail/low interactivity, all @ 720p/30FPS? TLOU has lovely animations and cutscenes, and I'm sure it's a blast to play, but you may be stretching that one too far.

ND do a great job with what they're given, but it mostly comes down to their art direction and clever use of painted/static detail. After seeing the variety of "next-gen" demos that showcase what's possible on modern PCs and hopefully next-gen consoles, I too am tired of the current generation.

It's clear that we've pushed this gen about as far as it will go. There's still some stellar titles to come, but it's time to start moving on and improving other areas. We've greatly improved cinematic presentation and multiplayer/connectivity this gen, and those will continue to improve, but there's also AI, physics and dynamic, realistic animation, interactive environments, procedurally generated environments, and a whole slew of other elements alongside graphical fidelity that we need to start tackling, as well as making it easier and cheaper to bring blockbuster titles to the shelves.

That said, I'm also tired of Crytek running their mouths, but I digress.

one2thr2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

If "Low res textures, low poly geometry with buckets of aliasing, a dearth of environmental effects and staticworld detail/low interactivity,[email protected] 720p/30FPS" can look that great, and be compared on the same bases as modern pc games, then thats saying a lot on the PS3 behalfs. In other words, it just goes to show that high res, and high poly geometry isnt necessarily needed to make a game play and look great. But as a PS3 gamer, and PC gamer I can say thank you on the behalf of every PS3 owner, with your said, and my qouted interpretation of your un-intentional compliment/statement that you stated good sir.... Thank you :)

LightofDarkness2383d ago

If you've been playing games in 1080p/60 with all the eye-candy cranked up for the last few years like I have, it's quite easy to see the difference. And I don't think I've seen anyone besides PS3 fanboys try to compare the game's visuals to a modern PC game (e.g. BF3, Witcher 2, Crysis 2 DX11, even Crysis).

That was a nice attempt at spin, but I think it serves only as an example of the twisted logic that fanboys are using to convince themselves that they've won something by liking a videogame. How have I complimented YOU or other PS3 fans, exactly? I think that alone says a lot more about how wrapped up you are in PS3 fan-dom than anything else.

one2thr2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

Thats my point, Pc gaming and Console gaming shouldnt be compared in the first place. But yet pc gamers seem to have to always put their two cents in to down play console games by the actions of comparison. Its like a bunch of parents enjoying a little league football team, the same as a major league football team, one has their kid(console) on it and the other has the favorite athlete(pc) on it, ones cute to few the other is liked because of states. And yet there being compared as if their on the same playing field by these parents(gamers). **just added this thought** Hell you can sometimes find better played games within the little league, than what you can with the major league.** They both play games, and ones obviously superior to the other, and yet people tend to compare them, and by doing that those people are giving the more inferior half, a compliment by trying to make it stand up against something thats not in the same league as it. Thus for lead me up to post that statement about what you said about The Last of Us... Now do you see where Im coming from?... Anyway im a pc and console gamer, and I know the limitations of both dont believe me find me on any pc gaming client steam, origin, and console online service SEN(PSN), live (and for windows game): look for :one2thr (i play on everything)

Saladfax2383d ago

Yeah, PC gamers are *clearly* the only ones making random superiority claims. Console fellows *never ever ever* try to make unsubstantiated bellowing of better XYZ.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2383d ago
Tyre2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

@Optical Matrix...Crytek is a lot of things, but certainly not lazy. making such comments as u do, is the typical example of being lazy.

Jazz41082383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

Couldn't help but think of Killzone lol. If the 360 is holding the ps3 back then by god its ime for the ps3 to start showing it. I have played nothing on the ps3 that could not be done on the 360. It might take multiple discs bu the cpu and gpu in the 360 is as good if not better then the ps3. The 360 also has more memory and is easier to develop for. I'm not buying this dream engine, and power of the cell hype the sony shoves done your throats. The 360 and Ps3 are so close it comes down to whether you like there exclusives and or apps. If anyone can show me something from a neutral developer that says ps3 is more powerfull and the360 is holding it back then I might listen. All I can find is devs saying there very close and some saying the 360 is better. I have played enough games on both systems to see that they both have there advantages but neither one is that far ahead to be holding the other back. It wil be interesting next gen if this still holds true or with sony being in such financial issues if ms will one up them.

Fylus2383d ago (Edited 2383d ago )

Um, Uncharted 3? The Last of Us? Killzone 3? Sorry, I don't mean to seem fanboyish; I like the Xbox, I really do... But what games does the Xbox have that looks as good or better than those aforementioned games?

Halo 4 visually looks brilliant, but even so, you have to admit that it isn't that big of a leap from Halo Reach.

I'll admit, Gears 3 looks great, but its a bit downplayed by grungy textures and lack of color (which I can also admit for Killzone 3).

But come on, when you've got games like Uncharted 3 and The Last of Us that not only look great but are also as colorful and smooth as they are, I just don't see how you could say that.

stuna12383d ago

So why aren't their 360 games that are exclusives that compare to the ps3 exclusive, and also on a easier platform to develop for? Because they both have their own strengths and weeknesses.

Multiplat Xbox has the upper hand, easier platform to develop for.

Exclusives PS3 has the upper hand 1st party developers have an intimate knowledge of what makes the ps3 tick, because they fall under sony umbrella.

LaChance2383d ago

"It's not like your mediocre, generic shooters with pretty visual effects are in hot demand anyway."

No wonder Killzone doesnt sell. Damn those lazy guys at GG.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2383d ago
DigitalAnalog2383d ago

Had they made Crysis 2 exclusively for the PC. They wouldn't be saying these types of things.