Well it all depends what you like the games for. If you like the "open world" aspect, then Crysis 2 will be disappointing.

Crysis 2 feels like a corridor shooter with New York city as a backdrop.

Having said that, I know a number of people who really like it, so maybe you'll be more forgiving of it.

While I did enjoy Crysis 2, even tho not nearly as much as the first game, I would have loved city setting combined with massive, open levels. It's a shame Crytek rather went for corridors with some semi-open areas.

How many paths does one need to have a fun time playing a game? Heck, I played Doom/Quake/etc.....most were linear as heck(Yeah there were multiple rooms/corridors/paths/etc, but it was still mainly a "Find x item[Keycards/etc] and advance to next sector/area/etc" type deal."), but I still loved them.

I prefer complex puzzles to wide open areas with multiple paths from A to B. I suppose the only way to really properly have made Crysis 2 an 'open-world' game would have been to completely raze Manhattan to the ground. Gutted buildings are far less 'corridor-ish' than street alleys. You can jump through the window of one to the next, or if some rooftops are still intact you can use them as an 'express lane'.

I think Daikatana is known better for the marketing than the actual game itself...

Judging from Crytek's previous shooters, I seriously doubt Crysis 3 will be better than Ikaruga and Sin and Punishment: Star Successor.

It would be like opening a store called "Cheapskate" and marketing, "hey suckers, come pay my mortgage!". I'm of the opinion marketing doesn't accomplish 99% of what it sets out to do... but honestly... does that make you feel like you should go pick THAT store over any other?

Its an effective insult. Some people will laugh at it. Others my be intrigued and check it out. But for some, they will wait and see if you have anything interesting about the actual product to say (and they likely lost the ear to many of those in the first place when tried a gimmick marketing slur).

Part of me is just answering your question... the other part of me is asking... who wouldn't be offended?

That's sort of the point, they're trying to remind you to make sure to evaluate it, they don't care when, their main goal is to get it into your mind and in front of your eyes.

offended people complain and the best marketing for any product is getting the intended audience talking about it regardless of if it's "good" talking or "bad" talking. as I was trying to sarcastically pointing out before; this thread is two pages of free, if a bit unintentional on the part of the posters, advertising for the game.

I personally wouldn't have even known that the trailer existed if not for this thread, but even though this thread is in opposition to the trailer it still got me to watch it.

Crysis 2 was something of a flop compared to the first Crysis and much of the market for this third game is currently more than a little disinterested in it since they assume that it will be more of the same thing that the second game was.

with this trailer and that comment, Crytek is trying to get customers with that specific mindset to take another look at the game ... even if they have to resort to infamy to do it.

I might out of interest(Wondering what was so bad/good about something that they decided to use such methods to advertise it.) and because I don't mind being trash talked to(To a point/in certain situations/etc.). I also get laugh when people use such "tactics" to get my attention.
---------------------------------
To me it's a wee bit insulting but not THAT insulting(There's worse/more personal insults, for one.). As for those who say they'll wait as the "marketing" doesn't appeal to them....well as Sogi-Ya said even some of those people will spread the word(Through telling people how bad the marketing was/is, etc.) either on purpose or accidentally, so even if they lose some of those people they'll gain more from such people spreading the word even further.

---------------------------------
I wouldn't......also(imo) "normal" people wouldn't, if they considered two aspects: How petty/small an insult it was compared to bigger insults & worse things they should actually be worrying about/getting mad over, and considering the fact that it wasn't meant to be an actual serious remark against individual people personally.

In the end, thanks for answering my post. I got the chance to hear the subject from another POV & reply in kind to same......