Crytek announced that in Crysis 3 the environment will be less destructible than in Crysis 1. In my opinion this is the worst thing they can do. I think everybody agrees that that a game with destructible environments and especially the dynamic not-pre-rendered destruction system of the cryengine 3 is just awesome and i really can't understand why they don't want to add this feature. I think there are 2 options:

1. console hardware is too weak to make it run
2. it's possible to run on the consoles but their priority is on other features that kill performance

to 1. : if the consoles are too weak they should then add it to the pc instead of raising up their middle finger again to the pc gamers with a game where possible features aren't added just because they want to make every version on every platform be the same. I think that isn't necessary because like the console players would be jealous or something ?! pc hardware has the power to handle it so they should please add it.
to 2. : they really should set more priority on dynamic destruction because that will be a whole new and better level of gameplay experience. They shouldnt let us destroy less than in crysis 1, they should let us destroy more!!, because the cryengine 3 is able to do that. You can destrroy walls, wood, glass, even metal (real-time deformation) so why not add it? You can imagine how much the game would be better if you think about Crysis 1 and how worse it would be without the amount of possible destruction. This is a part of the gameplay that makes the player play it over and over again.

To sum it up , please Crytek add that whole dynamic destruction in Crysis 3 more than in Crysis 1 and if the consoles are too weak than at least add it just for the pc version, why should we suffer again?
What does the rest of the community think about that?
I hope it will be a big topic so Crytek will notice it and what the community wants!
( I'm sorry for the long post and some mistakes maken in this text, i'm german)

They should let us destroy entire hallways/paths.
Because honestly, now that NY is plenty overgrown, I'm sure it's a bit less stable in terms of construction.

And all those ginormous holes every now and then only make more room for destruction of epic proportions.

I'll be happy if I can collapse skyscraqers

> Dev Crysis 3 for PC
> Tone down destruction until consoles can run it

Pretty simple.

> Dev Crysis 3 for PC
> Tone down destruction until consoles can run it

Pretty simple.
Problem is, money talks. Not only is development expensive, but so is advertising; and unless you want to risk confusing people about which version actually has destruction, you won't be able to brag about it in advertising. If they can't rely on it in advertising, they may as well not to do it, as it's not going to influence most people's choice to purchase the game.

> Dev Crysis 3 for PC
> Tone down destruction until consoles can run it

Pretty simple.
Problem is, money talks. Not only is development expensive, but so is advertising; and unless you want to risk confusing people about which version actually has destruction, you won't be able to brag about it in advertising. If they can't rely on it in advertising, they may as well not to do it, as it's not going to influence most people's choice to purchase the game.
Can't say I thought of that... still, surely the same could be said for graphics? The PC gets stuff the consoles don't, and this is happily displayed in pretty much every in-game advertisemant. Legally at least, I think they're covered if they stick a 'PC gameplay footage' notice at the bottom. While it could be argued that this is in some way misleading, one of the Battlefield 3 adverts showed a player being killed by falling rubble, and in actuality neither version had that feature.

It just seems ridiculous to remove aspects from the PC version due to nothing but business technicalities.

> Dev Crysis 3 for PC
> Tone down destruction until consoles can run it

Pretty simple.
Problem is, money talks. Not only is development expensive, but so is advertising; and unless you want to risk confusing people about which version actually has destruction, you won't be able to brag about it in advertising. If they can't rely on it in advertising, they may as well not to do it, as it's not going to influence most people's choice to purchase the game.
Can't say I thought of that... still, surely the same could be said for graphics? The PC gets stuff the consoles don't, and this is happily displayed in pretty much every in-game advertisemant. Legally at least, I think they're covered if they stick a 'PC gameplay footage' notice at the bottom. While it could be argued that this is in some way misleading, one of the Battlefield 3 adverts showed a player being killed by falling rubble, and in actuality neither version had that feature.

It just seems ridiculous to remove aspects from the PC version due to nothing but business technicalities.

In actuality, you can be killed by falling rubble in BF3, it just doesn't happen very often.

As for graphics, it's different to features. Graphics is just the quality of the image. You know you're getting the same game on consoles, it just won't look as good. When it comes to features, displaying something that's only available on the PC version is misleading, even if it says 'PC footage'. The only way people would find out it's not in their version is by checking out the forums etc, which is just not reasonable to expect from the majority of casual consumers.

It's not a matter of legality or business 'technicalities', it's simply to avoid confusion, and therefore prevent their reputation being damaged when people got the wrong end of the stick.

In actuality, you can be killed by falling rubble in BF3, it just doesn't happen very often.

As for graphics, it's different to features. Graphics is just the quality of the image. You know you're getting the same game on consoles, it just won't look as good. When it comes to features, displaying something that's only available on the PC version is misleading, even if it says 'PC footage'. The only way people would find out it's not in their version is by checking out the forums etc, which is just not reasonable to expect from the majority of casual consumers.

It's not a matter of legality or business 'technicalities', it's simply to avoid confusion, and therefore prevent their reputation being damaged when people got the wrong end of the stick.
In which case, touche. Guess PC users will just have to deal with it.

Meh, Battlefield 3 has less destruction than the previous one... not a game breaker. Don't remember there being much destructibility in Crysis apart from the sheds...

Destructability Should be a key feature in the upcoming game.

You should be able to interact way more with your environment. Crysis 2 got just that cod physics what was really lame, for example when a car blows up. This video shows it very good:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nXQnW1avmM



That's such a loss of gameplay experience if you ask me

Video doesn't work
Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nXQnW1avmM

I just hope that Crysis 3 will have a better destruction and better physics than C2

sry i didn't get the video in my post

When Crysis 3 will be released it's 6 years after Crysis 1 and in my opinion you can expect better physics and interactivity than after 6 years !!!

When Crysis 3 will be released it's 6 years after Crysis 1 and in my opinion you can expect better physics and interactivity than after 6 years !!!

You never know with crytek, they should but we'll have to wait and see.

When Crysis 3 will be released it's 6 years after Crysis 1 and in my opinion you can expect better physics and interactivity than after 6 years !!!

You never know with crytek, they should but we'll have to wait and see.


As they already announced that the game would be less destructible i don't expect much at this point. I hope that the community is maybe able to change their mind so maybe they'll add it. They've got still a year of development.

In which case, touche. Guess PC users will just have to deal with it.
Don't get me wrong, I totally want Crytek to make a proper PC game, and just do whatever they can on the consoles, I just think the only way it'd be likely to happen is with a staggered release, like the Witcher 2; they made a proper PC version, and then just did as much as they could with the console version.


Meh, Battlefield 3 has less destruction than the previous one... not a game breaker. Don't remember there being much destructibility in Crysis apart from the sheds...
The previous Battlefield was Battlefield 2, which had no destruction; Bad Company 2 was a spinoff. Still, not that your point was relevant to what I said in any real way, but it's a case in point of console capabilities. The reason for toning down destruction was because they wanted great visuals, and with the very limited performance capabilities they had to work with, something had to give. They did at least have the right idea with multiplayer though, giving the PC users much larger maps and teams, because their machines could handle it. Hopefully Crytek will look at this when contemplating their multiplayer, although I find it doubtful.

Oh, and in Crysis you could destroy sheds and trees. You could cut down a tree, break it into pieces and then use it to kill someone if you wanted.

I hope we could see a lot of destruction this time. However i am just skeptical that the PC version will be toned down to suit the Consoles version.

When Crysis 3 will be released it's 6 years after Crysis 1 and in my opinion you can expect better physics and interactivity than after 6 years !!!


1.Consoles 6 year old

2. Lowering the quality of the visual effects(textures and etc) for the sake of a couple of destructible bottles and etc .. did not see the point .. wait Crysis 4 on next-gen consoles for this...right now developers must do maximum visual quality on consoles what they can do compared with PC..

Consoles can not give everything you wanna right now..wait next-gen

Silly thread..autor kid!..Dont post something like this again .. do not abuse the forum..

I hope we could see a lot of destruction this time. However i am just skeptical that the PC version will be toned down to suit the Consoles version.
I'm not just skeptical, I'm certain of it.



1.Consoles 6 year old

2. Lowering the quality of the visual effects(textures and etc) for the sake of a couple of destructible bottles and etc .. did not see the point .. wait Crysis 4 on next-gen consoles for this...right now developers must do maximum visual quality on consoles what they can do compared with PC..

Consoles can not give everything you wanna right now..wait next-gen

Silly thread..autor kid!..Dont post something like this again .. do not abuse the forum..

Visual quality is trivial. Gameplay mechanics should always come first, simply because that's what makes the game FUN.

People these days are far too obsessed with visual quality. If you want maximum graphics, get a PC.

Visual quality is trivial. Gameplay mechanics should always come first, simply because that's what makes the game FUN.

People these days are far too obsessed with visual quality. If you want maximum graphics, get a PC.

yeah .. it's fun to break the bottle, break the benches .. with mario graphics ..i think you must try Wii...

i like gameplay of Crysis + Graphics ... Independence have in the game destruction or not .. also destruction in crysis 3 will be and this will be fully sufficient ...So the difference with the PC version will be minimal..with your opinion.. differences grow up in a few times .. but I do not want to buy the game for $ 60 which is several times worse than the PC version that will be cheaper ..

everything else to the next-gen ..

Visual quality is trivial. Gameplay mechanics should always come first, simply because that's what makes the game FUN.

People these days are far too obsessed with visual quality. If you want maximum graphics, get a PC.

yeah .. it's fun to break the bottle, break the benches, .. with mario graphics ..i think you must try Wii...

i like gameplay of Crysis + Graphics ... Independence have in the game destruction or not .. also destruction in crysis 3 will be and this will be fully sufficient ...So the difference with the PC version will be minimal..with your opinion.. differences grow up in a few times .. but I do not want to buy the game for $ 60 which is several times worse than the PC version that will be cheaper ..

everything else to the next-gen ..

Your game will always look several times worse than the PC version unless the devs hold back the PC development. Consoles are less than one tenth of the power of a decent PC these days. Just look at the difference with games like the Witcher 2 which has released on consoles recently.

It's people like you who hold back game development with multiplatform AAA titles, because the devs can't put extra substance in a game, when your antique machine is struggling to chug out decent visuals at around 30fps.. and besides, when you speak of super mario, you're talking about an art style, not graphics. But yeah, continue committing the logical fallacy of exaggerating to the point of absurdity, it makes you look super smart.

When Crysis 3 will be released it's 6 years after Crysis 1 and in my opinion you can expect better physics and interactivity than after 6 years !!!


1.Consoles 6 year old

2. Lowering the quality of the visual effects(textures and etc) for the sake of a couple of destructible bottles and etc .. did not see the point .. wait Crysis 4 on next-gen consoles for this...right now developers must do maximum visual quality on consoles what they can do compared with PC..

Consoles can not give everything you wanna right now..wait next-gen

Silly thread..autor kid!..Dont post something like this again .. do not abuse the forum..

You may have noticed, that crysis 1 was released on consoles,too with quite good visuals and the same level of destruction as on pc,so its possible. Then its not about unimportant things to destroy as bottles etc. but as the vegetation , whole walls , metal and for example the cars: when you throw a grenade on them in crysis 1 they explode and fly away, i mean physical correct, thats the way it should be, not like in crysis 2 where they explode but don't move a milli meter. And if consoles really couldn't handle everything, then don't add it to the console version but to the pc version, because pc can handle it. To not use the abilities of today hardware is the point pc players are upset about. I'm sick of waiting for a game that uses all the technically possibilities although it could already be developed and even run on today pc's.

i strngly agree thats what made c1 and warhead one of the best PC games out there. PS also what happened to open maps

Your game will always look several times worse than the PC version unless the devs hold back the PC development. Consoles are less than one tenth of the power of a decent PC these days. Just look at the difference with games like the Witcher 2 which has released on consoles recently.

It's people like you who hold back game development with multiplatform AAA titles, because the devs can't put extra substance in a game, when your antique machine is struggling to chug out decent visuals at around 30fps.. and besides, when you speak of super mario, you're talking about an art style, not graphics. But yeah, continue committing the logical fallacy of exaggerating to the point of absurdity, it makes you look super smart.

http://www.merlininkazani.com/images/games/6381/galeri_150.jpg

Witcher 2 on consoles ..between Hight and Average settings of PC... look several times worse? lol

Also 30 fps absolutely sufficient..the human eye see a maximum of 24 fps..

and besides, when you speak about PC, you're must talking about profit, not about what PC can do... the logical fallacy of exaggerating to the point of absurdity, it makes you look super "smart" too. lol