help me...for register to my crysis warhead.

I played BF3 Beta on my PS3, a PC lead game. And oh boy do these graphics svck compared to Crysis 2. Even the Crysis 2 beta on PS3 looked better than BF3 beta, but it's still a beta of course.
I don't want to bad mouth PC it is and always be superior.

Fact is the graphics keep stagnating since 2006/07.
And whether you think its because of the capitalism or the general focus on consoles.
Without consoles, we would have almost photorealistic grfx and way more complex gameplayelements by now.
With PC -centric development, we would have at least twice the quality of the grfx and more complex gameplay in games.
All this on Pcs of course.

And by looking at this "real" progress PC owners with gaming Pcs have a reason to be angry.

Fact is the graphics keep stagnating since 2006/07.
And whether you think its because of the capitalism or the general focus on consoles.
Without consoles, we would have almost photorealistic grfx and way more complex gameplayelements by now.
With PC -centric development, we would have at least twice the quality of the grfx and more complex gameplay in games.
All this on Pcs of course.

And by looking at this "real" progress PC owners with gaming Pcs have a reason to be angry.

well obviously because you can just keep throwing power at the games one way or the other

hence why why I am soooo looking forward to the time this will all be moot

no Mickey, it is not worth my time...at all

even if I brought a signed statement from Bioware, Bethesda, ID software, Valve and whatnot you would still go on arguing. Despite what you believe your point is not absolute. It assumes that developers like Bioware -for instance- or Bethesda who put INCREDIBLE amount of effort, manpower and resources in their massive games, are lazy because they do recognize there is more money in lead platforming for PC -you say it is irrefutable after all- and they are obviously not doing it. I mean the extra time and effort would result in more money right? So either they are truly lazy OR don't want to make more money............or, just maybe, you are wrong that that "extra money" is not really worth it at all, or even actually there for that matter.

but whatever Mickey keep arguing semantic, keep ignoring connotative meanings (lol that was actually priceless really) to try and make yourself look superior or more knowledgeable

truth is it's a battle you will never win
All this, and yet you're still talking about money and ignoring the point I made. What I said was absolute, is that PC-lead games are better for everyone. This has nothing to do with everything you have said.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Try again.

Fact is the graphics keep stagnating since 2006/07.
And whether you think its because of the capitalism or the general focus on consoles.
Without consoles, we would have almost photorealistic grfx and way more complex gameplayelements by now.
With PC -centric development, we would have at least twice the quality of the grfx and more complex gameplay in games.
All this on Pcs of course.

And by looking at this "real" progress PC owners with gaming Pcs have a reason to be angry.

well obviously because you can just keep throwing power at the games one way or the other

hence why why I am soooo looking forward to the time this will all be moot

Lol it will never be moot. PCs will always have more graphics processing power, and therefore always have better graphics. To think otherwise is just naive.

You're going to look real silly when the next gen come out.

I'm done arguing with you Mickey, you're not worth it

Lol, so you waste so many words discussing money, completely fail to address the point I made and then attempt to take some kind of high ground?

Good luck with that, but you still haven't refuted anything I've actually said.. You've refuted plenty of things I never said though so bravo

I played BF3 Beta on my PS3, a PC lead game. And oh boy do these graphics svck compared to Crysis 2. Even the Crysis 2 beta on PS3 looked better than BF3 beta, but it's still a beta of course.
I don't want to bad mouth PC it is and always be superior.

I've heard alot of people bagging the beta (a three month old beta mind). I'm not disappointed in the graphics at all. They stand up to COD easily IMO. We'll have to wait and see how the full game goes. I'm super keen for it tho.

One thing you have to remember tho is that there is a hell of alot more going on, even in Operation Metro, compared to Crysis 2.

Crysis 2 has small CoD style death match arenas, Battlefield 3 has huge open maps wih lots of **** to blow up and trees to knock over, missles launching etc. also with alot more players on the map than Crysis 2. With graphics its important to compare apples with apples

I also think the BF3 framerate is more reliable than Crysis 2 (on PS3)

As for the Console lead Vs PC lead "debate":

My opinion: Crysis 1 is a better game than Crysis 2, and BF3 looks to be a much better game than MW3. Sadly a better game doesn't necessarily mean better sales *cough* black ops *cough*, but hopefully that will change this year

Lol, so you waste so many words discussing money, completely fail to address the point I made and then attempt to take some kind of high ground?

Good luck with that, but you still haven't refuted anything I've actually said.. You've refuted plenty of things I never said though so bravo

the point you made was also invalidated by your own words when you discussed "good developers staying good" in relation to great console games that were never leadplatformed for the PC.....but wait.....even if a game was born on consoles it would benefit from PC developement because pc can throw more power at it.........well that would be great if what made a game great was ONLY technical achievement which is obviously not

you do not need a PC lead platformed game in order for the game to be great, you never will unless in order to be "great" you need pure "technical achievement" or "hardware pushing" features

YOU are also the one who said there is more money in PC developement , just throwing it there.

There will come a time, likely not in the next generation, in which "resource budget" will not be an issue anymore when it comes to graphical fidelity and other features. At that point this discussion will be utterly moot

again, you have proven at length you are one of the "enlighted pc master race" crowd.....you are not worth arguing with, you never will be

Lol, so you waste so many words discussing money, completely fail to address the point I made and then attempt to take some kind of high ground?

Good luck with that, but you still haven't refuted anything I've actually said.. You've refuted plenty of things I never said though so bravo

the point you made was also invalidated by your own words when you discussed "good developers staying good" in relation to great console games that were never leadplatformed for the PC.....but wait.....even if a game was born on consoles it would benefit from PC developement because pc can throw more power at it.........well that would be great if what made a game great was ONLY technical achievement which is obviously notWhy are you focusing on technical achievement when that is only a portion of PC-lead games? Generally PC games also make use of more features as I have already mentioned. For example, the console version of BF3 will now bet getting a server browser, something which few console games have had in recent years.

The reason I said 'good developers staying good' is because all developers started with PC games, as development is done on PCs, and early work for a developer is obviously not going to be on a console game, which is more expensive to distribute. whether the company itself has ever made a PC game is irrelevant considering that it is the developers doing the work.

you do not need a PC lead platformed game in order for the game to be great, you never will unless in order to be "great" you need pure "technical achievement" or "hardware pushing" features
In a sense this is true, but whether or not a game NEEDS to be PC-lead is irrelevant when the developers are perfectly able to add these features and depth to console games, but choose not to. When a game is PC-lead the developers are under pressure to provide as close to the PC experience on consoles as is possible, which results in the console players getting these things, which are typical for PC games.

YOU are also the one who said there is more money in PC developement , just throwing it there.
And overall there is, but this is still irrelevant to the point I've been making throughout.

There will come a time, likely not in the next generation, in which "resource budget" will not be an issue anymore when it comes to graphical fidelity and other features. At that point this discussion will be utterly moot
In what way will the point be moot? If you want to talk purely about resources, the consoles will never again be on par with PCs in processing power; therefore console-lead games will always be made to the lesser hardware specifications and always underperform on PCs.

On the actual gameplay front, a game which focuses on console development will always be more 'casual' because that is what the majority of the audience are.

again, you have proven at length you are one of the "enlighted pc master race" crowd.....you are not worth arguing with, you never will be
Lol you always try to finish on comments like this as if it's going to have some profound effect of making you somehow win the argument. You're still yet to refute my claim, and do everything you can to shift the discussion.

Address the point. Perhaps I should phrase it differently; Can you say definitively any way in which a PC-lead game is NOT better for console gamers?

Double post

I don't care whether or not Crytek is becoming console-centric or not, I'm a console gamer, and I like Crysis. Can't wait for Crysis 3, and I still play Crysis 2.

Honestly I Think They Should Put Warhead On Consoles. It Would Be Amazing To Play Since I Don't Own Or Can Afford A $1000 Plus Gaming Computer. If They Manage To Put Warhead On Console(Which Should Be Possible Since They Did It With The First Game) They Should Add A Feature To Have The Ability To Use The Nanosuit Wheel Like In The PC Version. I Think That Would Make The Game Even Better

@SUNNY_LEGUNA

Yes you are right. There's definitely a lot more going on on BF3 big and open maps than Crysis 2's or COD's maps. I never thought of BF's deustructible maps until you mentioned it.
But I think I'm not that much into 'realistic' warfare games like Battlefield, most of the time I didn't even know where I got shot from in the BF3 beta on my PS3. I really like Crysis 2 more because it's fast paced.

Crysis Warhead would be kick ass on 360, but I would rather Crytek fix Crysis 2 first. Either way I would buy it.

Honestly I Think They Should Put Warhead On Consoles. It Would Be Amazing To Play Since I Don't Own Or Can Afford A $1000 Plus Gaming Computer. If They Manage To Put Warhead On Console(Which Should Be Possible Since They Did It With The First Game) They Should Add A Feature To Have The Ability To Use The Nanosuit Wheel Like In The PC Version. I Think That Would Make The Game Even Better

Yes I am really hoping for Crysis Warhead to make it's way to consoles and soon (PLEASE) HOPEFULLY. Crytek did an amazing job IMO putting the original Crysis on consoles so I would think Warhead would be great as well. PLEASE DO IT CRYTEK!

I hope they bring Warhead to consoles I really enjoyed Crysis alot.

I would love to see this expansion up on Live Marketplace, but then again maybe Crytek will do something special and release Crysis along with Warhead on a disc!

Having the original Crysis on disc along with Warhead would be great too, but I'd be just as happy as long as they bring Warhead to consoles just as a download. I just hope they do it soon. The console version of Crysis was really a great game.

I hope they do make Crysis warhead for the console and restrict it to N64 graphics at max. Think of all the money they would make. Development cost would be WAY down and they could still charge 60$!! Win! Hahaha!

I would love to see warhead and would buy it instantly. The word of mouth has always been it was the better game. My only problem is the framerate needs attention for consoles. Some type of mp would be nice as well considering that game is short. Crytek REALLY needs to show off warhead sooner than a month before release this time, I have at least three friends that saw me playing crysis 1 on their friends list and messaged me about it, they had no clue it was even coming out!! Insanely terrible job of marketing on EAs part. Absurb really.

I hope it does.
Silly people in here, derailing a simple thread, regarding a simple question.

"My only problem is the framerate needs attention for consoles"

- That would require more downgrading in grxquality.

I get eyecancer when i play this port on my 360.. just loaded it for comparing the versions by myself.
We can talk about textures and everything else being dumbed down as hell,,, but the most ugly thing is the extreme low resolution and the absolute lack of AA. If anyone ever said this "port" would be technically or visually anywhere near the original hasnt played Crysis 1 on PC!

I LOVED Crysis. I held off on buying Crysis 2 until 1 was released on Xbox. I would enjoy it to no end if Crytek released Warhead on 360. Please Crytek! Make it happen!