Template talk:Crytek

Proposed new design

I propose this design for the template. I made the changes in the past but somebody told me it must be discussed first and its true ^.^

So, i want to know if its possible to put it this way,

Thanks--Hahc21 (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

About 'Haze'

I need to know why Haze is on this template when, searching a little, i don't find any conection between the game, the developers, or Crytek, as of when the game was released. I mean, as of know, Free Radical Design os now Crytek UK, but that doesn't mean whe should include every game relased by Crytek's aquisitions before aquired on this template. --Hahc21 (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It's the same with most of the games on here, Timesplitters, Second Sight. This is a Navbox for Crytek, but also Crytek UK, which made those games. They own the studio, they own the games, they own the IP. Why wouldn't you include those items? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Far Cry 2+3

Far Cry 2+3 do not belong on this template as Crytek had no involvement with their production. As it stands the template is very misleading as it implies otherwise. They need to be removed. If anyone objects to this correction feel free to provide reasoning on this talk page. --67.20.248.170 (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, those games were not produced by Crytek or any of its divisions, and the IP is owned by Ubisoft, so the relation is less than marginal. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

About the divisions

Hi! I'm a great fan of Crytek, as I believe you already know XD I want to know why, on the division group, Frankfurt, Ukraine, Hungary and Seoul were removed? Also i think the template needs revision. I'm not convinced on adding every Free Radical Design's games pre-Crytek, it misleads information and confuses the reader. We should only leave here games developed during Crytek ownership or Crytek's own development.

I propose this:

Thanks --Hahc21 (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)