lukaszthegreat: crysis 1 pushed the boundries of graphics. it was in that department ahead 3 years. It was also marketed that way.
Delixe: Isn't that the point? Crysis 2 was never marketed as something that will burn your PC if you so even look at the DVD like Crysis was. Crysis was a brilliant game tech speaking but it had it's faults. With Crysis 2 they concentrated on the gameplay more than the graphics and it resulted IMO in a much better game. Sure Crysis 2 isn't an openworld sandbox like Crysis but being set in a city gave it a decent enough reason for that other than making it console friendly. The alternative options are still there just on a smaller scale because of the location. Not to mention for a single player FPS it's very long by todays standards.
If the game was called Invasion: NYC is under threat: AGAIN!
then yes. that would matter.
but we expect from sequels to continue trend set by the first game.
15 years ago similar thing happened with Duke Nukem (a bit more extreme tough)
sure DN3d was awesome and amazing game. Yet all complaints about it not being 2d platformer were valid.
I believe the quality of game is completely irrelevant when it comes to meeting people's expactations in regards to the graphics quality of crysis 2.
Melkor: Well all that before Witcher 2 came out, although a bit dissapointed by some things missing from Witcher 1, i like it.
such as?
I still not played TW2 (even tough i got the game on release. waiting for new computer)