yeah so all developers are morons and their financialn departments are delusional. Yet as I said before it took crysis 1 three years to do what crysis 2 did in 3 months . Whatever Mikey, keep thinking that and waiting for them to realize you hold the truth and the key to all doors. I'm out
Did I say that developers are morons? I don't think so.

The fact that Crysis 2 gained similar sales to Crysis 1 in a matter of months only counts for anything if the sales continue, which they are unlikely to do given the state of the game now.

Plus, it amazes me that you fail to grasp the simple concept that a PC lead-platform results in a better game for everyone, and that 'where the money is' is completely irrelevant as the game is being sold on all platforms anyway. If a game is made for a console, it is built within the limits of that console. Console players never see any of the PC features (which many want) and never get anything particularly difficult or demanding. That's not because console players are idiots, but because most of the console userbase are casuals and don't want too much difficulty or need extra features.

If the game is lead by PC, the PC players get a full game, but the console players get more than they would otherwise. It becomes less of an issue of 'these are the limits' and more of an issue of 'let's see how much of this we can actually fit in the console'. The result is a game like BF3, where console players are getting probably the best multiplayer game of 2011/2012, and it's coming as a direct result of the PC influence.

The rejection of this concept by console players clearly isn't based in reason, it's just a kneejerk 'yuck' reflex at the mention of the PC platform, which they see as elitists. If you can tell me any way in which a PC-lead game has a negative effect on consoles we can discuss it, otherwise it's clearly a win-win situation.

Finished the game on delta, and I'm on my second play through. Game looks AMAZING. The textures look like the PC version on high, but some of the foliage textures can look poor upclose, as do they on the enemies' clothing when you grab them. Apart from that, and one or two missing details, the game looks easily as good as Crysis on high, with the lighting looking better.

@ bearlily
"The textures look like the PC version on high" : Not even close.

http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/crysis/artikel/crysis,43297,2561228.html

Youre clearly havent seen Crysis 1 on "high" otherwise you wouldnt write as much half baked superficial knowledge as you do.
Look at the comparisonshots on the website and be suprised how poor the consoleconversion looks when compared to "high" on vanilla Crysis PC.

Those screenshots are rubbish, the game on 360 looks nothing like that washed out mess. As for me not seeing the game on high, I generally play Crysis on high, and finished it on the setting. I have both versions.

BTW, I tried Crysis last night with medium textures. They clearly looked worse than the 360 textures. Textures on the enemies' clothing do look better in the PC version on high though along with some of the foliage textures looking ugly upclose in the 360 version. They are the worst looking things in the game, and they are only tiny details.

@ bearily

The screenshots arent rubbish. Or do you think one of europes biggest Gamemagz with really high repuatation would manipulate screenshots?
You must be out of your mind buddy. See it as it is the consoleversion is clearly inferior. Connect your 360 to a PC Monitor and see for yourself.
If you sit far away enough from your TV every game looks good...

Also the huts have less physical objects and the textures are really really bad.

@ bearily

The screenshots arent rubbish. Or do you think one of europes biggest Gamemagz with really high repuatation would manipulate screenshots?
You must be out of your mind buddy. See it as it is the consoleversion is clearly inferior. Connect your 360 to a PC Monitor and see for yourself.
If you sit far away enough from your TV every game looks good...

Also the huts have less physical objects and the textures are really really bad.

I watched a video of Xbox360 on that same stage, and yeah, it looked exactly like it did in their screenshots.

Most of the grass (and a lot of other vegetation) is gone, and I do recall a command in Crysis that would remove most of the grass when enabled. It actually resulted in a huge FPS gain, that's probably what they did for the console versions.

It looks great for console, but I don't think it looks anywhere close to as good as the PC, really. It does look about a mix of medium/high/very-high settings, but of course the lighting and TOD in console version are all-new. I do love the way the lighting looks in the console version, it's very colorful.

The biggest difference between the PC on high, and the Xbox, is that they've cut out A LOT of the foliage, and the textures on some of the enemies look bad in the Xbox version. That's it. Everything else looks like high. Those screens really are terrible. it's like they went out of their way to make the game look bad. Not only that, they are comparing the game maxed out to the Xbox version. I'm comparing the Xbox version to the high setting. The Xbox version does indeed have some fugly textures, but go and play the PC version on high, and you'll see they're no better.

Sitting in front of a Tv screen and then compare your impression of the texture/foliage or whatever to Crysis 1 on Pc is rubbish.
Ive already seen some detailtextures which were extracted from the consoleversion and compared to the Pc ones on high.
The conclusion was the groundtextures of the grass for example are as low as the ones used in the consoleversion for Crysis 2.. and are not even on par with the medium textures on Crysis1 Pc. Crysis on Pc on the other hand had some weak textures even on very high... but with crysis remastered its the opposite... you have to find some good textures in all the very low res surrounding.

If you can show me these parts, do so, because I haven't seen them. I don't have a way to take direct screens from the Xbox version, but I almost feel like taking screens with my camera off screen to show how the textures are pretty much the same as high. When I played Crysis on medium, it really looked like crap compared to the Xbox version. Apart from the amount of foliage, which pops in like crazy, and the aggressive LOD, the console version destroys it. You can't have played this game if you think most of the textures are bad. There's no way. I'm more than wiling to accept there's one or two ugly ugly textures in the game, but they really are few and far between, and they look just as bad in the PC version on high.

Please do show me all of these textures that look bad compared to PC on high, and I will admit I am wrong, because I'm just not finding them.

The forum post that ive referred to earlier is not longer in my google searchresults.
I dunno why.. but heres something i found around other sites: ( example: the grass ground texture)

Crysis 2 :


Crysis 1 texture (the "high" version.)


Crysis 1 remastered:


The same goes for almost every ground texture including the POM.
In fact Crysis 1 remastered has even worse textures than Crysis 2 sometimes.

I went back after I posted it, and the grass textures look like medium rather than high, but everything else pretty much looks like high when it comes to terrain textures. I'm gonna take some off screen screenshots of the 360 version and show you how bad the medium textures look in comparison. BTW, there's a hell of a lot more to this game than the first mission.

@bearlily

Yeah i know ive played Crysis for over 20 times now and tried a ton of mods.

Crysis 1 on Pc vanilla on high easily beats the console port. That is a fact for me.
Very High puts the consoleport to shame. Also a fact for me.
A modded Crysis 1 looks like its from another universe ..

Nobody would normally question that... its only because C. Yerli said something stupid as " console remake looks better than Pc version."

The implementation of POM, while welcome, is liberal at best.

While the rocks on the beach in the first level look great, there are other areas where I remember POM being used which look very flat and no better than the medium textures in the PC version.

The lake in Onslaught used to have raised pebbles now it is flat, whereas the pebbled route up to the frozen ship in the first level seems to have it.

The deep tyre tracks from the heavy machinery in the village in Recovery, also flat. But then in other places it is used, the start of Awakening, the tyre tracks on the road use it but in other areas they don't.

It seems wildly inconsistent but in some areas the texture work is really detailed. I guess it comes down to the size of the level as to what they could get away with with the limited memory available.

You only have to play Relic or Onslaught to see what they have acheived, these levels are huge and while I am sure they do lack the PC versions detail the best compliment I have is, I played it on DX10 Very High on PC and it looks pretty much the same to me from memory.

The cut scene at the start of Relic is almost photorealistic to me, if a little low res. It was the one scene from the PC that really made me go wow back in the day and it looks just as good on console.

I actually agree high on PC beats the console version, there's far more foliage for a start, what I'm saying is, is that it's not a big difference, and I think the lighting in the console version looks better. You should really play the game on console, because you'll be surprised. I was expecting medium graphics, and low textures, I think console got mostly high graphics with some cut backs.

My PC for the record is a q9450, 4gb ram, 2 9800gt cards in SLi. Most of Crysis on very high is playable, but sometimes it's too much for my PC too handle. I want the PC version ported to the CryEngine 3, because I think then the PC version would demolish the console version, and would run far better than the Crysis we have now.

Now if only I could figure out what's causing the BSOD every half an hour or so...

I finished Crysis on my PS3 a couple of days ago. While it does look very good, it is nowhere near as good looking as Crysis 2. I also have to disagree to those saying that Crysis is overall better than Crysis 2. Crysis has these huge open ended levels with enemies scattered everywhere, I sometimes got lost. But I think the reason for these levels being so big was that Crytek wanted to show the world what they're able to do as a developer. I can now also disagree about people saying that the first Crysis has a better story than the second one. Crysis 2's story is immersive in every single way, I loved how the suit was the center of the story, and don't get me started on Crysis 2's level 'Dead Man Walking'... IT IS the best level I have ever experienced in a videogame, it feels so cinematic, it really feels like I am in the suit.
Crytek learned a lot about story-telling and gameplay mechanics between Far Cry and Crysis, but they learned a sh!tload more about gameplay and story-telling between Crysis and Crysis 2.
My two cents.

@ The4orTy67

I think its about what you prefer.
Consolegamers are used to shooters with bombastic cinematics.
Some hardcoe Pc gamers seem to like more "game"- content and options and less cinematics.
Also for me... Crysis 1 and Warhead were the better "games" for me... because i experienced more cool situations within the game.
The cinematics are always the same everytime i play the game... they dont change and so they dont increase the replayability.
I could easily install Crysis 1 one more time and find new ways to complete my mission.
Because i want to play a game and dont want to watch endless scripted cutscenes. If i want a good story with bombastic cinematics i will visit a cinema.

Wish i knew...got screwed on a Code and cannot play it ...cant buy it either as i can acsess my XBL account info to change payment details...im sooooo gutted.

I can now also disagree about people saying that the first Crysis has a better story than the second one. Crysis 2's story is immersive in every single way, I loved how the suit was the center of the story... it really feels like I am in the suit.
Crytek learned a lot about story-telling and gameplay mechanics between Far Cry and Crysis, but they learned a sh!tload more about gameplay and story-telling between Crysis and Crysis 2.
Agreed! It's fun that all PC players here begin to say that Crysis has a better story than Crysis 2. Nowhere near, guys!

Crysis 2 has a better story and a better story-telling! Devs did a lot of great work to tell you the story of Crysis 2/New York Invasion through environment, through level design, through voice acting, through strong characters, through pacing, different missions and even through nano-suit maintenance messages... I mean they used almost all kind of tools to make Crysis 2 story very believable. And personally Richard Morgan has very big balls to make nano-suit AI the center of the story and add few cool cyberpunk and transhumanism twist in the end.

Yes, they made a lot of mistakes, they didn't make Alcatraz so charm as Nomad, they made him voiceless, they forgot about Nomad, they changed alien design, they didn't add frozen levels, they made very slow start... BUT! It just means that Crysis 2 was non-canon sequel (Valve always did this because they know that gameplay is more important than canons! They did this in Half-life 2, they did this in Portal 2), but it has greater engaging story. The first Crysis has more problems and plot holes overall.

P.S: I'm glad that console players get the first Crysis and, I guess, they liked it very much. I hope Crysis sales will be very good on both consoles and Crytek will change Crysis 3 formula towards more open areas.

I was playing Crysis 2 last night, and thought it looked amazing. It's hard to say which looks better. The soldiers look better in Crysis 2 with higher res textures and loads of detail, while in Crysis 1, one of the types of costumes the soldiers wear look very low res. The lighting is about the same, and some textures look better in Crysis 1, while some look better in Crysis 2.

I can now also disagree about people saying that the first Crysis has a better story than the second one. Crysis 2's story is immersive in every single way, I loved how the suit was the center of the story... it really feels like I am in the suit.
Crytek learned a lot about story-telling and gameplay mechanics between Far Cry and Crysis, but they learned a sh!tload more about gameplay and story-telling between Crysis and Crysis 2.
Agreed! It's fun that all PC players here begin to say that Crysis has a better story than Crysis 2. Nowhere near, guys!

Crysis 2 has a better story and a better story-telling! Devs did a lot of great work to tell you the story of Crysis 2/New York Invasion through environment, through level design, through voice acting, through strong characters, through pacing, different missions and even through nano-suit maintenance messages... I mean they used almost all kind of tools to make Crysis 2 story very believable. And personally Richard Morgan has very big balls to make nano-suit AI the center of the story and add few cool cyberpunk and transhumanism twist in the end.

Yes, they made a lot of mistakes, they didn't make Alcatraz so charm as Nomad, they made him voiceless, they forgot about Nomad, they changed alien design, they didn't add frozen levels, they made very slow start... BUT! It just means that Crysis 2 was non-canon sequel (Valve always did this because they know that gameplay is more important than canons! They did this in Half-life 2, they did this in Portal 2), but it has greater engaging story. The first Crysis has more problems and plot holes overall.

P.S: I'm glad that console players get the first Crysis and, I guess, they liked it very much. I hope Crysis sales will be very good on both consoles and Crytek will change Crysis 3 formula towards more open areas.
What the hell are you smoking? The story of Crysis 1 was so much better it's untrue!
You're a special forces group sent to infiltrate an island full of enemy forces, and end up discovering some badass aliens. How can you even compare that to being a dead guy in a suit who basically goes around new york being told what to do by pretty much anyone?

Mickey you're right.

Even Far Cry had a better story than Crysis 2...

What the hell are you smoking? The story of Crysis 1 was so much better it's untrue!
You're a special forces group sent to infiltrate an island full of enemy forces, and end up discovering some badass aliens.
So if Crysis 1 story and story-telling are so great, tell me please what's happened with all inhabitants of these islands? Why are all shacks so empty? Where are the people or at least their bodies? The school was so empty too! All children just vanished! Where are they? Why there is no evidence of massive evacuation or vital activity? Do you really think that main antagonist have enough time to appear in both Crysis and Crysis Warhead story? Also do you actually enjoy cliffhanger of the first Crysis? Why Crysis has so small group of characters? Why that special forces group can't regroup itself through all game?

There are so many questions because Crysis story has a lot of huge plot holes and shallow storytelling.

@ Ken2u

It has been told in Crysis 1s story that the koreans evacuated the island before they start working on the dig site and tried to open the gate.
And why didnt you understand that Crysis Warheads story took place after Nomad and Psycho go parted ways after meeting major strickland.
Nomad was even unconcious for a very long time during that period. It all fits perfectly.

What the hell are you smoking? The story of Crysis 1 was so much better it's untrue!
You're a special forces group sent to infiltrate an island full of enemy forces, and end up discovering some badass aliens.
So if Crysis 1 story and story-telling are so great, tell me please what's happened with all inhabitants of these islands? Why are all shacks so empty? Where are the people or at least their bodies? The school was so empty too! All children just vanished! Where are they? Why there is no evidence of massive evacuation or vital activity? Do you really think that main antagonist have enough time to appear in both Crysis and Crysis Warhead story? Also do you actually enjoy cliffhanger of the first Crysis? Why Crysis has so small group of characters? Why that special forces group can't regroup itself through all game?

There are so many questions because Crysis story has a lot of huge plot holes and shallow storytelling.
Firstly, your 'plot holes' are actually revealed if you were paying attention; including the fact that Crysis and Warhead were occurring simultaneously to one another, and were actually two different protagonists. You also seem to have missed the point of this being a special forces operation, which would require a small group of characters, or were you banking on getting to know all the soldiers you see dying later on?

As for the cliffhanger, it was pretty damn obvious why they were going back to the island, and if it weren't for Crytek's poor decisions, we'd have found out the result in Crysis 2.

Besides, it's not like Crysis 2 ended with any real resolution. Alcatraz now has an OP viral catalyst suit and only New York has been purged of aliens.. If you want to talk about plot holes in Crysis 2 you might want to consider what the hell Prophet was doing, How he got the N2.0, why he's wearing clothing under the nanosuit when Warhead suggested skin contact and how the hell he ended up in New York; and why nobody else realised there were aliens under Central Park despite the fact they've been laying pipes and wires there for decades.