There are far more than people think (made for PC). RTS games are essentially a PC-only thing, and MMORPGs seem to be. Indie games have been phenomenal (check out Indie DB), and clearly DICE is making a PC game and then dumbing it down for consoles (as it always should be, since it makes logical sense - it's just more…

I can and I do. Lots of developers make great money by keeping their head in the gaming world, not the corporate world. As a business major at a highly regarded business school, one of the things that has become most apparent to me is that firms which focus on quality in their field succeed in the long-term FAR more…

Disagreed.

Untrue. Remember the release price of the PS3? $700-800 at the time. And the GPU wasn't cutting-edge. Neither was the Xbox 360's (PS3's is inferior actually). You could have just as easily built a rig with a GPU that matched or outperformed console GPUs even at launch, for the same/similar price.

Disagreed with your fourth point 100%. PC gaming is an entirely different experience, so console ports ARE dumbed-down for PCs. There's no other way to say it. Inferior hardware leads to ridiculous limitations in graphics, physics, sound, and overall engine features.

Sorry man, you're entirely incorrect on the cost issue. You weren't looking hard enough for good deals or something. I didn't say you could build a BEAST rig for the same/similar price. I said you could build a rig which outperforms (marginally to moderately) an Xbox 360/PS3 for the same/similar price.

This article is mostly correct. But one main thing - while I hate consoles, it's not consoles which are to blame. It's lazy/money-hungry developers who care only to develop for consoles and shaft PC gamers (even if the firm only made it and thrived due to PC gaming - I'm looking at you, Crytek).

WTF is wrong with you? You may need a hobby.

Number one is false - many have built PCs that are the same/similar price than consoles, which outperform them. I did it too with an HTPC.

That's not the point. Crysis/Crysis Warhead did. This is a step backwards.

WTF are you talking about? I'm upset because Crysis 2 went backwards from Crysis, did you not bother reading anything I wrote? The game plays fine, yes, the story is better, and it still looks above average. But its predecessor has superior graphics, thorough PC-gaming support, DirectX 10 support, and better…

You clearly misrepresented my comment. Graphics aren't everything, but they matter a metric shit ton now, to the point where they can break or make a game.

I concur with neosoul. And I don't have to try to see the difference - consoles look God-awful to me and MANY others. Benchmarks have absolutely nothing to do with this.

You must be blind or must be playing ancient games if you cannot tell the difference between Xbox 360 and PC graphics. The difference is night and day.

Word. Graphics matter quite a bit for immersion, and the engine's features (physics/destruction) matter like no other.

I'm not sure yet if I'm enjoying it - I need to play it more. Story is certainly better. But thanks!

It's backwards when the graphics are worse, the destruction/physics are virtually non-existent, there is no 64-bit .exe, and PC support is missing.

I'm undecided if I enjoy it.

The textures are WAY lower in resolution, the model poly-count is lower, and the water effects look remarkably worse.

Crysis is graphically superior to Crysis 2 in all but lighting/shadows. This is fucking BACKWARDS. Especially when Crytek made so many false promises about better graphics, DirectX 11, and not backstabbing PC gamers.