As angry as i was since the first time ive played the first release version of Crysis 2, the more deflated im now as i realise that Crytek actually made a good job for a multiplatform game.
Many people (including me) stated that the differences to the consoleversions were too minor and the whole game not worthy to be a successor to a brilliant game like Crysis 1 . But exactly that was my mistake.. to compare it to Crysis 1. Ive realised that Crysis 1 was one of a million. One of the best shooters ever made with one of the most impressive and powerful engines ever made.
So what comes out if you bring it to consoles we all can actually see in the remastered version.
Here is a very detailed anolysis of the two (in german but with many good pictures)
http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/crysis/artikel/crysis,43297,2561228.html

Of course its downgraged as hell.. but it benefits from the PC lead production that Crysis 1 originally was.
So actually it went like this: they made the best game they could build technically and gameplaywise in 2007 and then optimized the engine two a new version and scaled it down to fit on consoles. The result: a brilliant game for consoles.. and the still one of best shooters and most impressive grfx on PC. In the end... both sites are happy. The Pc still got the most impressive game ever made and consoles got the best their machines can actually handle.

If you ask yourselves why iam starting this thread?
Its because of rage..not the "emotion" but the new Shooter from ID.
If Crysis 2 suffered from console limitations (as Cevat once said) then this game stumbled and fall over console limitations. With the newes Patch its finally a playable expirience on Pcs.. but the detailgrfx remind me of Half life... and i mean the original from 1998. ( By the way i do not talk about the texture -popping-up bug. i talk about the absolute flawless high res version of the game)

Johnny Caramack: MR GAMESDEVELOPMENT SAYS in an interview with Kotaku:

The fact that id had already decided that they wanted Rage to run at 60 frames per second already removed one of the major things PC gamers look for in a title, he continued. That only left resolution, anti-aliasing, and texture streaming as things that a computer gamer might want to see look better than on a console.

"We do not see the PC as the leading platform for games," Carmack added. "That statement will enrage some people, but it is hard to characterize it otherwise; both console versions will have larger audiences than the PC version. A high end PC is nearly 10 times as powerful as a console, and we could unquestionably provide a better experience if we chose that as our design point and we were able to expend the same amount of resources on it. Nowadays most of the quality of a game comes from the development effort put into it, not the technology it runs on. A game built with a tenth the resources on a platform 10 times as powerful would be an inferior product in almost all cases."

So lets all be happy if Crytek sticks to their plan and still delivers technically superior games for the PC.

I don't think PC will ever be a lead platform again... At least not now. Developers have realized that it's much cheaper to build games for console specs, and they can still sell it for $60. Just how it is, and there's not much we can do about it, other than stop buying their games.

It's quantity over quality, and it's the way gaming will be from now on, until the next-gen consoles (which are still pretty far off).

I don't think PC will ever be a lead platform again... At least not now. Developers have realized that it's much cheaper to build games for console specs, and they can still sell it for $60. Just how it is, and there's not much we can do about it, other than stop buying their games.

It's quantity over quality, and it's the way gaming will be from now on, until the next-gen consoles (which are still pretty far off).

Absolutely, developers can go console-centric because it's the easy option. You don't need to produce as high-end a product because of the fact the consoles can't take it. Add the fact that you can use a ton of developers' tricks such as motion blur, bloom and fog to hide inadequacies on console (and actually get away with it) and you can see why some developers choose that platform.

However, as far as selling console games goes, companies like EA are starting to realise that they actually make FAR more money from digital distribution. When they release a game on consoles they have to pay SONY and M$, as well as pay for distribution and disc production etc. When they sell games on origin 100% of the revenue goes into their pocket. Consider how overpriced their games are also and you're sitting on a pot of gold.

Actually pc is always lead platform in any multiplatform game. Any game looks better when played on high end pc with full hd, AA and 60 frames. However that is what around 1% of gamers will do. Most will play game on consoles (or even laptops), so, as for a developer, working on hi-res textures, hi-polycount models, hi-detailed maps etc. is just waste of time and money. Developers care more about 6 y.o. consoles and less about hi-end pc so game from 2007 is still one of a best looking and most hardware demanding piece of software available (can anybody remember how Quake 2 from 1997 looked in 2001, when RTCW, AVP2 and Halo came out? - now graphic revolution is much slower). For me it's a good thing: I don't play on PC any more, so when I play on console, I know that I don't lose much of graphics, that developers wants to show me. But to be honest, I think Crysis on consoles would look much better if it's not conversion from pc. I don't think that Crysis 1 & 2 are best looking games on consoles. This goes to latests PS3 exclusives (Killzone 2/3, Uncharted 2/3, GOW 3). I'm sure that if developers decide to make Crysis exclusive for Xbox or PS3 it would look amazing. Right now it's just scaled down graphic from pc version with lower resolution, 30> frames, glitches etc. Without any advantages, console exclusives has (MLAA anyone?).

Actually pc is always lead platform in any multiplatform game. Any game looks better when played on high end pc with full hd, AA and 60 frames. However that is what around 1% of gamers will do. Most will play game on consoles (or even laptops),
This is just plain wrong. The fact that all games are made on PC =/= PC is lead platform. Having better graphics on PC doesn't mean for a second that PC was the lead platform either, it's just the standard thing to do for the PC version of games.

Plus, you're also wrong about the amount of people whom can play the game on high, it is FAR greater than 1%. Granted, because consoles are actually two separate platforms, it is likely that the majority will be on consoles, but it is just as likely that PC has more players than any one of those platforms individually, and a lot more than 1% of them will be playing on a desktop PC, with the ability to use high settings.



so, as for a developer, working on hi-res textures, hi-polycount models, hi-detailed maps etc. is just waste of time and money. Developers care more about 6 y.o. consoles and less about hi-end pc so game from 2007 is still one of a best looking and most hardware demanding piece of software available (can anybody remember how Quake 2 from 1997 looked in 2001, when RTCW, AVP2 and Halo came out? - now graphic revolution is much slower). For me it's a good thing: I don't play on PC any more, so when I play on console, I know that I don't lose much of graphics, that developers wants to show me. But to be honest, I think Crysis on consoles would look much better if it's not conversion from pc. I don't think that Crysis 1 & 2 are best looking games on consoles. This goes to latests PS3 exclusives (Killzone 2/3, Uncharted 2/3, GOW 3). I'm sure that if developers decide to make Crysis exclusive for Xbox or PS3 it would look amazing. Right now it's just scaled down graphic from pc version with lower resolution, 30> frames, glitches etc. Without any advantages, console exclusives has (MLAA anyone?).
This is just jibberish. You actually want to hold back technological development so that you 'don't lose graphics' .

This is just plain wrong. The fact that all games are made on PC =/= PC is lead platform.
Every game is made on PC, even console exclusives. However in console exclusives developers knows their limits, so all artwork and code is made from scratch to fit console hardware. Artists can decide where they can put less detailed artwork, where to put some good ones etc. In multiplatform games all artwork is made in highest possible details (for high end PC) and then cut down for consoles. That makes PC lead platform. Same goes to graphic engines: there is none that is using all capabilities of all platforms. In the end Crysis on consoles isn't looking and working as good as console exclusives. Framerate is choppy and there are tons of graphic glitches that you won't see in latest Uncharted or even Gears of War.
Plus, you're also wrong about the amount of people whom can play the game on high, it is FAR greater than 1%.
Ok, lets say that's 3%
This is just jibberish. You actually want to hold back technological development so that you 'don't lose graphics' .
There will be next generation of consoles and til then I will play on Xbox 360 and PS3. Best looking games I'm playing are console only. Games looks better each year thanks to better programing and better artwork. Best thing is that I don't need to buy new hardware each year to enjoy games the way, developers wanted me to. I really want to see what how Crysis would look like if it's not just a handicapped offspring of PC game

"In the end Crysis on consoles isn't looking and working as good as console exclusives. Framerate is choppy and there are tons of graphic glitches that you won't see in latest Uncharted or even Gears of War."

Its because these games are way more linear and dont use that much "technical" stuff.
Ever seen POM in Gears of war? Or fully destructible objects in killzone? These games look good because they are technically inferior in any other aspect.

"Best looking games I'm playing are console only"

Thats says as much as i cant drive any faster than my car allows me to.
But Pc gamers would have to say.. we could easily speed up to 200 kmh.. but the speedlimit is 80 kmh on all streets.

Just look at the samaritan demo or the new DX11 Demo from Square Enix... we are playing with old **** grfx if you compare it to what is technically achieveable nowadays.


Also dont mesh up console and PC limits.
Even a world exclusive gets everything out of the PS3 with 100% scienceproof optimization... would never top the original Crysis.
Because the console limits are real and physically existent. Exclusives use so much tricks to look good... you would be suprised how weak they technically really are.

Another thing, games that are built on PC-first end up BETTER on consoles, than they would if they were just built around console hardware. Even a lot of console gamers know this.

I remember Half-Life 2 got ported to the original Xbox, I actually used to have it. The entire game was there, even though they had to cut out a lot of graphics. I ended up giving it to my nephew, and he must've played through it at least 10 times, Half-Life 2 was an amazing game. Definitely the kind of game they don't make anymore, even RAGE wasn't as good as Half-Life 2. Just goes to show what kinds of games are possible, when they are made with PC as the target platform.

I don't even see how it has anything to do with the market, or with piracy. Even if the game's PC-first, they port it to console, it's still gonna sell on consoles as much as it would.

So why do they keep throwing the "piracy" excuse at us?

@ MoleZ47

I think the piracy is sometimes only an excuse for the minority that pcgamers are compared to the consolegamers.
Its easier to say: "we cant put as much effort in it because it gets pirated anyway" than: "hell we dont spend more time for a minority that doesnt give us as much profit as the consoleowners."

Lets face it: Pc gamers have become a minor Elite, compared to the consolemassmarket.

BTW YOU CAN PIRATE ON CONSOLES TOO!!! So yea, I'm tired of the "PC gamers are just a bunch of pirates" talk. I have a friend that does a lot of modding/pirating on his console. It's just dumb to pirate something you actually like though. If you actually enjoy something, chances are you're gonna be willing to pay for it. And the people who pirate software more than likely were never gonna buy your product to begin with so you're not really losing that much to begin with.

And I DO NOT CONDONE PIRATING ANYTHING. I'm just saying it does exist in all markets, not just the PC market.

I'm a console gamer, but i have a pc which can handle all games coming out now (just making clear)

And it seems you people were talking about on what machine it plays better. But is that really the point?
Take Crysis 2, from my PERSONAL experience, i like it more on consoles rather than PC. Why? Because i am used to controllers.
I don't really get the fact that people say that games are played better on consoles rather than pc's, isn't is personal experience? Or are we talking about technical comparison now? Cuz then u lost me, i just learned a lot from u guys talking about development. So i really don't have a saying in those things xD

(sorry for my limited english, hope you guys can read through my absent english writing skills )

You know Xbox controllers work just fine when plugged into PCs right?

You know Xbox controllers work just fine when plugged into PCs right?

That's true but PC doesn't have aim assist...

Try plaing the first Crysis (PC) with an Xbox controller...