So I've seen a lot of people in this game complaining that Crysis 2 is now "Maximum Console". Well I can tell you that is complete crap.

I did a side by side comparison between a PC version of this game, and a console one and the difference was HUGE. My PC is running an intel I7 quadcore processor, NVIDIA Geforce 460 GTX vid-card, 32 bit Windows 7 OS, and 3 gb of ram, on Ultra settings with DX11 enabled. (can't run high-res textures, need 64 bit for that).

Graphics: Pc version blows the console one out of the water in every possible way.

Frame-rate: Console version had more random stutters than the Pc version.

Load times: At least three times longer on console.

Gameplay: Pretty much the same, just on a controller.

Bugs: Here the PC has more, that is undeniable, but I still don't see bugs very often on my PC.

Cheaters: I hardly see any no matter what platform I play, but they do pop up from time to time.

Any one else play a console version of this game? If you have were your findings similar to mine?

What can you not get it around your head that this isn't a console port? DX11 and stuff came 3 months later and when the game came out, it was not much better than the Xbox360 version with 10x better hardware.

It's easy enough to bolt on DX11 later but it still makes it a console port. "Press Start To Begin" was in the demo, which means they ported the console part over to save time and released it in a complete mess.

What can you not get it around your head that this isn't a console port? DX11 and stuff came 3 months later and when the game came out, it was not much better than the Xbox360 version with 10x better hardware.

It's easy enough to bolt on DX11 later but it still makes it a console port. "Press Start To Begin" was in the demo, which means they ported the console part over to save time and released it in a complete mess.

Dude I bought this on launch day. When the game first came out it was a bugged up mess, but still much better than when I tried the console version. This is just my experience with it.

Yeah, I should think so being as the console version is on 5 year old hardware. PC versions are usually better than the console version but not by a huge amount because devs don't spend the time making it better for superior PC hardware.

According to John Carmack, "PC hardware is 10x faster than consoles" but I've never seen a PC console port look 10x better than a console game.

True, when the game came out it was a mess, but they did an awesome job of patching up such a broken game, mostly........ at least for the high end PC's we dont see as many stutters......

Consoles use a modified medium quality setting. PC version has always looked better especially because of the higher setting. Many of the missing features eventually made it into the pc version. Though there are still a couple of issues.

If Crysis 2 multiplatform leads to crysis 3 whereas crysis 2 pc platform would not have, then is it necessarily a bad thing. The issue is that developers don't always have time to tweak a game to ensure the higher platform runs at its best.

Smith754, the main point in the consolisation of Crysis, is in what Crysis used to be and offer, and what it became through multiplatforming and mainstreaming.
Whether or not it's a technical console port, and even if it was built for each platform at the same time, it still comes to the PC off the branch of the console tree.

Even with those superficial marks on the surface, such as press start, "fixed," it doesn't fix what has been altered and ruined in the fundamentals of the game in order for it to go console.
The different gameplay ability, possibilies, and game freedom Crysis used to present are mostly gone.
Sadly maybe only people who were deep enough into the originals will understand all this.

Yeah, I should think so being as the console version is on 5 year old hardware. PC versions are usually better than the console version but not by a huge amount because devs don't spend the time making it better for superior PC hardware.

According to John Carmack, "PC hardware is 10x faster than consoles" but I've never seen a PC console port look 10x better than a console game.

Thank you. Warth, and Evo.

Someone gets it. It has nothing to do with consoles holding anything back, Carmack gets it. Devs make the choice on how to develop the game. Crytek made obvious bad ones. They've even stated that. Yet you always find deluded individuals who claim consoles magically made the game. If devs PUSH it on PC to the max, then use that as a base for consoles. Most of the time, it will turn out lovely. Sloppyness shows.

You could even say COD left a bad taste. Generated millions, and showed how lazy work can generate income. It's like the community are saying, until COD doesn't meet Activisions sales targets, dont expect anything 'new' to be included. Which from a business perspective is true. Don't fix what isn't broken.

Like I keep saying, the industry is craving money. This is the result. I do hope C3 does a much better job, and is fully packaged on all platforms.

Thank you. Warth, and Evo.

Someone gets it. It has nothing to do with consoles holding anything back, Carmack gets it. Devs make the choice on how to develop the game. Crytek made obvious bad ones. They've even stated that. Yet you always find deluded individuals who claim consoles magically made the game. If devs PUSH it on PC to the max, then use that as a base for consoles. Most of the time, it will turn out lovely. Sloppyness shows.

You could even say COD left a bad taste. Generated millions, and showed how lazy work can generate income. It's like the community are saying, until COD doesn't meet Activisions sales targets, dont expect anything 'new' to be included. Which from a business perspective is true. Don't fix what isn't broken.

Like I keep saying, the industry is craving money. This is the result. I do hope C3 does a much better job, and is fully packaged on all platforms.IF devs push for PC focus it can turn out differently? Of course, but how hard does it seem for them to do that, how many more years would that have taken Crytek? How much easier is it not to and how is the thing causing and creating the bad choices, cuts and limitations not in any way responsible for the outcome??

You know that if Crysis 2 had full PC focus, there would be many elements of the game and gameplay being felt on the PC but not at all on the console counterpart. That's how deep the difference is, and it's more than just graphical limitations, a lot more.
I'm sorry, but whether you see it enough or not, and whether inadvertantly or not, consoles are continually bringing their restrictions, drawbacks and lacking of ability to the PC.

I hoped such PC focus could happen for Crysis 2, given its amazing roots as well, but it didn't happen, and doesn't happen for many other games. So it becomes a fact that among all parts of the problem, the nature of consoles (which pretty much holds hands with the money craving in this) is a big one of them.

Believing it's not is like creating a pair of shoes for an athlete which will also look and feel comfortable for a businessman, and then not knowing why they don't perform so well for athletes compared to proper ones designed specifically and soley for them. Without dedication, there will always be compromise. The level of compromise is probably where the devs have some control when going multiplatform, and even in that they are of course placing most compromises on the PC side.

Thank you. Warth, and Evo.

Someone gets it. It has nothing to do with consoles holding anything back, Carmack gets it. Devs make the choice on how to develop the game. Crytek made obvious bad ones. They've even stated that. Yet you always find deluded individuals who claim consoles magically made the game. If devs PUSH it on PC to the max, then use that as a base for consoles. Most of the time, it will turn out lovely. Sloppyness shows.

You could even say COD left a bad taste. Generated millions, and showed how lazy work can generate income. It's like the community are saying, until COD doesn't meet Activisions sales targets, dont expect anything 'new' to be included. Which from a business perspective is true. Don't fix what isn't broken.

Like I keep saying, the industry is craving money. This is the result. I do hope C3 does a much better job, and is fully packaged on all platforms.IF devs push for PC focus it can turn out differently? Of course, but how hard does it seem for them to do that, how many more years would that have taken Crytek? How much easier is it not to and how is the thing causing and creating the bad choices, cuts and limitations not in any way responsible for the outcome??

You know that if Crysis 2 had full PC focus, there would be many elements of the game and gameplay being felt on the PC but not at all on the console counterpart. That's how deep the difference is, and it's more than just graphical limitations, a lot more.
I'm sorry, but whether you see it enough or not, and whether inadvertantly or not, consoles are continually bringing their restrictions, drawbacks and lacking of ability to the PC.

I hoped such PC focus could happen for Crysis 2, given its amazing roots as well, but it didn't happen, and doesn't happen for many other games. So it becomes a fact that among all parts of the problem, the nature of consoles (which pretty much holds hands with the money craving in this) is a big one of them.

What I was aiming at is the fact that devs can do much better than what they do now. If they did, the 'difference' wouldn't be as huge as many individuals like to point out. Everyone knows PC WILL ALWAYS be able to do more than consoles. I'm well aware that you'll notice differences. It doesn't need to be said 93448938492849389439 times. Hence why some devs stick to PC.

If a game which doesn't get any real changes can beat sales records, and generate ridiculous amounts of money. You don't think publishers wouldn't attempt to tap into that? It's a business. If they decide to do that, then yes, sacrifices will be made.

Maybe Crytek will do what CDP did with Witcher 2. Release on PC, and then bring onto consoles if its possible, without damaging all platforms at the same time. (doubt they'd do that though) Come on, the demo on PC had a freaking console start-up. The PS3 beta was pulled early, which meant lack of time to get feedback. There were a load of poor choices made.

All you can hope for is that Crytek learnt.

WOW thats alot of wrighting i red the first bit and then just quit lol xD

@Pein-Lazarus
Fair enough, but what I was aiming at is that consolization is a large factor these days. The very things we can agree with, or hope to have happen, aren't happening largely because of consoles and their control and effects on the market and gaming.
Greed for money might be spurring devs and companies on, but the consoles are there and part of that money path, in built with their compromises, of which obviously end up creating and pushing the limitations and differences.

It's a vicious cycle and I know and agree, devs can do better to bring focus where it's needed albeit with more effort. It's just you can't excuse the object of which their priority becomes in the damage that follows.

I remember the old times: Serious Sam.PC.Fun.

@Pein-Lazarus
Fair enough, but what I was aiming at is that consolization is a large factor these days. The very things we can agree with, or hope to have happen, aren't happening largely because of consoles and their control and effects on the market and gaming.
Greed for money might be spurring devs and companies on, but the consoles are there and part of that money path, in built with their compromises, of which obviously end up creating and pushing the limitations and differences.

It's a vicious cycle and I know and agree, devs can do better to bring focus where it's needed albeit with more effort. It's just you can't excuse the object of which their priority becomes in the damage that follows.

Well, devs have been trying to make the minimum specs for games a bit low to attract people to PC. Which is fine. But at the same time, its personal preference. It won't change any time soon. The costs of putting games on consoles are bigger too. If we look at Blizzard, and other MMO devs, theirs a reason why those people stick on PC. It's what they do best, and it sells. If they wanted to be greedy and enter the console market... well.

However, I still firmly believe if devs tried a bit harder to maximize all platforms, no one would be complaning. Of course, that costs money. Some times they have the money, and time, but choose to put out crap. Why? Because it works

You can't blame consoles for CODs success. It's the consumers. They like it, and it shows. The negative side of that is, devs know they can get away with it now.

So I've seen a lot of people in this game complaining that Crysis 2 is now "Maximum Console". Well I can tell you that is complete crap.

Gameplay: Pretty much the same, just on a controller.

Contradiction.

Compared to previous PC titles, Crysis SP gameplay turning into boring, linear sh*t along with the multiplatform design is just a coincidence, huh? And GFX that went from cutting edge to console defined average along with it...

The MP gameplay is in PC favor tho, as PC controls can make everything out of it unlike controllers.

Mind you, it's not much different to RAGE, since Carmack spent so much time optimising RAGE for the Xbox360 that the PC is no different. That's not multiplatform gaming when you spend so much time on one platform.

(can't run high-res textures, need 64 bit for that)
Try this:
- Install hi-res texture pack;
- Move TexturesHighRes.pak file from \Crysis 2\patch\ folder to \Crysis 2\gamecrysis2\ folder
-

But unfortunately I can't guarantee that your game will be stable after that because of your amount of RAM.