What actually happened is that people seem to have some strange perception that a game can't look good and play well at the same time leading to a lot of kneejerking.
Exactly... it's like the beautiful woman who is also a doctor, she has to be twice the doctor as everyone else to gain respect.
Crysis had to be twice the shooter of every other because it was a graphics showcase... people were just waiting to bash it as all look no gameplay, especially console gamers who couldn't play the game.
I loved Crysis because it offered solid FPS action with PC controls and options, and in beautiful large enviornments. Playing through on Delta and having to use your powers was a thrilling experience. The story wasn't RPG quality, but what shooter's is? I know some were dissapointed the levels were somewhat more linear than Farcry, but that doesn't make the game bad, and hell people flip over Call of Duty which is as linear as a straight line. Even games considered non-linear are now-a-days becoming linear as hell... what do people do in Grand Theft Auto 4? They follow the GPS line. In Fallot 3 they follow the quest arrow... Crysis was no better nor worse.
In any event, the games I chose do not matter... the point is preserving singleplayer story-driven games on PC. People in the industry who make decisions are acting like AAA games of this kind are on borrowed time for PC, and I want to make sure that threat is never made a reality, even a little bit. I can lose the occasional game that should be on PC, like The Darkness or Gears of War 2, but I cannot stomach losing the majority.This comment was edited on Aug 23, 2009, 21:52.