Why is crysis 2 a console port?

I think the pc community deserves an explanation. Greed, lazy, time frame issue, I don't care what the reason is, I just want to know WHY.

Why do this? Please, grow some balls and just answer the question. Hey, you don't have to answer in this thread. Make a statement on this website. Anything. Just answer me this. Why?

Crysis 2 isn't a console port, for the same reason batman AA wasn''t because Unreal 3 is multiplatform in the same way the cryengine 3 is.

Turns out that most PC gamers like to throw around specific Technical terms (Porting) without understanding their meaning.

+1 for the annomouys interent user caliing people they have never met cowardly, because answers are more important than fixing the massive server issues the game has.

These types of complainers are always two posts away from claimming they are 6' 8 and over 400lbs

Crysis 2 isn't a console port

lolwut? Nice troll bro but its been done before, so 0/10 for lack of effort. Now go away. I don't care what you have to say. I would like a reason from a developer, not an idiot troll that has NO clue what they are talking about.

Why would they answer the question when we know what the answer is. Development for the consoles results in a better turnaround. PC development is done as a side project to help add value to finished assets of the game. I don't mind it as much as I mind poor support after the release.

UE3 may be a multiplatform engine, but that doesn't mean that the game running on it wasn't designed with console limitations in mind. Batman AA scales nicely and takes advantage of hardware availability that is not available with the consoles while Crysis 2 doesn't (outside of pure resolution).

Crysis 2 isn't a console port

lolwut? Nice troll bro but its been done before, so 0/10 for lack of effort. Now go away. I don't care what you have to say. I would like a reason from a developer, not an idiot troll that has NO clue what they are talking about.

Said the troll

Why would they answer the question when we know what the answer is. Development for the consoles results in a better turnaround. PC development is done as a side project to help add value to finished assets of the game. I don't mind it as much as I mind poor support after the release.

UE3 may be a multiplatform engine, but that doesn't mean that the game running on it wasn't designed with console limitations in mind. Batman AA scales nicely and takes advantage of hardware availability that is not available with the consoles while Crysis 2 doesn't (outside of pure resolution).

Your statement makes no sense, because its a console port. Meaning they didn't even attempt to optimize it for pc at all. No sandbox, no destruction, linear gameplay, no graphical settings - the ****? Dx9? Still? coming from crytek, I find that hilarious.

Oh... But i guess the, "PRESS START TO PLAY" wasn't a dead give-away.

They could have made a PC version, and then dumbed it down for the consoles. Instead it's already dumbed down for everyone including pc. What don't you idiots understand about that?

Crysis 2 isn't a console port

lolwut? Nice troll bro but its been done before, so 0/10 for lack of effort. Now go away. I don't care what you have to say. I would like a reason from a developer, not an idiot troll that has NO clue what they are talking about.


Both of you

In computer science, porting is the process of adapting software so that an executable program can be created for a computing environment that is different from the one for which it was originally designed (e.g. different CPU, operating system, or third party library).

Please read a book

Why would they answer the question when we know what the answer is. Development for the consoles results in a better turnaround. PC development is done as a side project to help add value to finished assets of the game. I don't mind it as much as I mind poor support after the release.


Your statement makes no sense, because its a console port. Meaning they didn't even attempt to make it for pc at all.

They could have made a PC version, and then dumbed it down for the consoles. Instead it's already dumbed down for everyone including pc. What don't you idiots understand about that?

Why would they do that when development focus for EA, Activision and THQ are the console platforms? As I said, content is developed with the consoles in mind, and since the content is complete, you build a PC version of it to try and increase the value. I really don't understand how you can fail to see the connection here. PC development (be it a literal porting process like Mass Effect [Original], or Homefront versus parallel development) is really more of an afterthought these days unless the house focuses entirely on the PC as it's main market (IE: ValvE).

merely an afterthought ? Are you kidding me? Do you know how many people have been in an uproar since dragon age 2, homefront, crysis 2, black ops, mw2, has happened?

This isn't something that has been happening forever, what's going on here is relatively new. If the PC community would just stop and say enough is enough none of this **** would be happening.

instead you have these morons that don't understand why they put limitations on consoles in the first place and then they defend the PC version of the game when they could have been getting 20x better gameplay in the first place!

I actually like Press Start to Play over Press any key to play. I dont care which version of the game its on. =P
It brings me back to the 8bit era... aaa Super Mario

... development focus has shifted away from PC and gone to the consoles. We know that. I don't understand why you're up in arms here.

... development focus has shifted away from PC and gone to the consoles. We know that. I don't understand why you're up in arms here.

****. We still have BF3 + Diablo 3.

Any GOOD developer these days understands there's no reason to put the same limitations on pc versions of the game that the console games HAVE. Because the current console platforms NEED limitations. The hardware is simply OUTDATED at this point.

As far as I'm concerned, crytek is gone. Only thing that's going to bring the light back into my eyes regarding crytek is if this upcoming patch puts everything in the game that should have been there in the first place in the PC version.

At this point, I seriously doubt that will happen.

You're kidding yourself if you expect Battlefield 3 to not have the same problem Crysis 2 is. Battlefield 3 will have the same design limitations inherent to the game. The only differences are potentially fluff and the player limits.

You're kidding yourself if you expect Battlefield 3 to not have the same problem Crysis 2 is. Battlefield 3 will have the same design limitations inherent to the game. The only differences are potentially fluff and the player limits.


**** mother **** lies. You have no clue what you are talking about at this point.

The frostbite 2.0 engine with dx11 is going to be able to do so much more than the console version will ever be able to do. Plus, we're getting 64 players. The console version is getting what? 24? BHAHAHAHaha. All I can say is, its about god damn time someone properly showed console limitation in its purest form.

Potentially fluff? LOL. I don't think you realize how much different the pc version is actually going to be.

The frostbite 2.0 engine with dx11 is going to be able to do so much more than the console version will ever be able to do. Plus, we're getting 64 players. The console version is getting what? 24? BHAHAHAHaha. All I can say is, its about god damn time someone properly showed console limitation in its purest form.

Potentially fluff? LOL. I don't think you realize how much different the pc version is actually going to be.

That doesn't mean that inherent gameplay mechanics will favor a PC approach. We've seen EA pull the "This is for PCs" card before, and I'm not buying it this time, even WITH the promises of high-fidelity lighting, DirectX 11, and expanded multiplayer caps. The fundamentals of the game will be limited to the scope of it's console counterparts.

You're kidding yourself if you expect Battlefield 3 to not have the same problem Crysis 2 is. Battlefield 3 will have the same design limitations inherent to the game. The only differences are potentially fluff and the player limits.


**** mother **** lies. You have no clue what you are talking about at this point.

The frostbite 2.0 engine with dx11 is going to be able to do so much more than the console version will ever be able to do. Plus, we're getting 64 players. The console version is getting what? 24? BHAHAHAHaha. All I can say is, its about god damn time someone properly showed console limitation in its purest form.

Potentially fluff? LOL. I don't think you realize how much different the pc version is actually going to be.

64 players wow
How on earth is Dx11 going to allow so many players when battlefield 2 from 2005 supported wait what was it....oh yeah 64 players, wow we really moved with the times

That will really show thoses consoles, especially that MAG on the PS3 and it's pathetic 256 player onlne battles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porting

It's just a matter of definitions. CryEngine 3 is multi-platform, so it's capable of producing specific sets of code for each platform. Think of it as cooking a meal. You can either cook the entire meal first and then when you find out there are vegetarians, remove all the chicken from it. Or you can split the meal into chicken and non-chicken parts before it's finished. The latter is what Crysis 2 is, the former is what a port is.

That said, there are some features that PC users have come to expect over the years, such as graphical settings and input customization. This is crucial, because unlike with consoles, everyone has different hardware. Crysis 2 in this regard is incomplete and needs major post-release patching. It's kind of similar to the launch of UT3. Players were calling out "port this, port that" and "it's all because of the consoles" when that game released, just because of a few missing features. They were eventually patched in though.

Crysis 2 PC release is kind of botched due to this, but the issues are all superficial/patchable and underneath lies a brilliant game.

You're kidding yourself if you expect Battlefield 3 to not have the same problem Crysis 2 is. Battlefield 3 will have the same design limitations inherent to the game. The only differences are potentially fluff and the player limits.


**** mother **** lies. You have no clue what you are talking about at this point.

The frostbite 2.0 engine with dx11 is going to be able to do so much more than the console version will ever be able to do. Plus, we're getting 64 players. The console version is getting what? 24? BHAHAHAHaha. All I can say is, its about god damn time someone properly showed console limitation in its purest form.

Potentially fluff? LOL. I don't think you realize how much different the pc version is actually going to be.

64 players wow
How on earth is Dx11 going to allow so many players when battlefield 2 from 2005 supported wait what was it....oh yeah 64 players, wow we really moved with the times

That will really show thoses consoles, especially that MAG on the PS3 and it's pathetic 256 player onlne battles

Comparing apples and oranges. You probably haven't even realized what the frostbite 2.0 can't even do.

Here's a thread I made in the BF3 forums for morons like you.

http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/5362556.page

One question.

Are you really expecting that someone of Crytek replies you when you are telling moron to each one that does not think the same as you?

One question.

Are you really expecting that someone of Crytek replies you when you are telling moron to each one that does not think the same as you?

I'm calling them idiots, because they ARE idiots. They have been either brainwashed or are severely miss-informed. Or they are xbox kiddies trolling.

**** mother **** lies. You have no clue what you are talking about at this point.

The frostbite 2.0 engine with dx11 is going to be able to do so much more than the console version will ever be able to do. Plus, we're getting 64 players. The console version is getting what? 24? BHAHAHAHaha. All I can say is, its about god damn time someone properly showed console limitation in its purest form.

Potentially fluff? LOL. I don't think you realize how much different the pc version is actually going to be.[/quote]

64 players wow
How on earth is Dx11 going to allow so many players when battlefield 2 from 2005 supported wait what was it....oh yeah 64 players, wow we really moved with the times

That will really show thoses consoles, especially that MAG on the PS3 and it's pathetic 256 player onlne battles[/quote]

Comparing apples and oranges. You probably haven't even realized what the frostbite 2.0 can't even do.

Here's a thread I made in the BF3 forums for morons like you.

http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/5362556.page[/quote]

Nice shift of goal posts, check out the 64 players, whoops I really meant Destructability yeah thats what I really meant to say.

The fact that we needed a patch to remove the "Press Start to continue" or adjust the brightness of my TV...it is a port no matter what they said. IF they made a PC specific version and did NOT port it they would not have needed the patch.
Also some interesting reading - http://www.warpzoned.com/?p=4885

One question.

Are you really expecting that someone of Crytek replies you when you are telling moron to each one that does not think the same as you?

I'm an idiot. I have been either brainwashed or are severely miss-informed. Or i am an xbox kid trolling.

FIXED =)

It's common sense why they aren't getting 64 players, but apparently it wasn't common sense to the person I was posting to.

One question.

Are you really expecting that someone of Crytek replies you when you are telling moron to each one that does not think the same as you?

You're an idiot. You have been either brainwashed or are severely miss-informed. You are an xbox kid trolling.

FIXED

No, now its fixed.