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.

it is all about trees and grass .. which eats resources smaller than the skyscraqers with jungle style.. + if add destruction to vegetation , whole walls , metal and for the cars ..+ lighting and etc..this is not possibly on consoles in 2012..

On Pc no profit ..and if you want profit on consoles you must look in consoles way than PC..

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 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

All of my friends can notice 60fps vs 30fps.

I don't just notice. I puke at 30fps. I can live with 60, but I can tell 120fps easily in 120hz monitors.

@ Lorenso:

maybe you're right, but i think adding some extra features like destruction just to the pc version isn't that much expensive

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
Are you implying that the console version looks like average PC settings? LOL! You're in dream land. Plus, you've picked a screenshot comparison of a particularly bad and dark looking part of the game. Go and find a screenshot of the Lobinden Forest..

Also 30 fps absolutely sufficient..the human eye see a maximum of 24 fps.. You say that, but most people can tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps. Not to mention the fact that if you're running at 60fps, you can experience a small frame rate drop in areas and barely notice; at 30fps even a small framerate drop makes everything go jerky and, if it gets as low as 20 things start looking like a slide show. So no, 30fps is not sufficient.

Here is a great example of the differences between framerates, which somewhat debunk the theory that people can't tell 60fps anyway: Click here


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
I'm really not talking about profit. When I say PCs are more than ten times more powerful than a console, I'm talking about pure processing power available. Hell, an average gaming PC nowdays is more than ten times as powerful.

Try again.. and maybe this time change whatever translator you're using so you're easier to understand.

You say that, but most people can tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps. Not to mention the fact that if you're running at 60fps, you can experience a small frame rate drop in areas and barely notice; at 30fps even a small framerate drop makes everything go jerky and, if it gets as low as 20 things start looking like a slide show. So no, 30fps is not sufficient.

Here is a great example of the differences between framerates, which somewhat debunk the theory that people can't tell 60fps anyway: Click here

At 60fps you not see frames .. you see illusion that make your eye .. human eye can see only 24 frames .. you see your 24 frames but with that 24 frames in the same time work another 36 frames that you do not see at all .. this creates illusion of smoother motion..only because you do not see this frames .. you see illusion, not frames..

30 fps is enough for me .. I do not see in this problem

at 30fps even a small framerate drop makes everything go jerky

yes .. because your eye can see 24 frames and you see frame by frame .. is that what your eyes can see .. each frame that will be added after 24 frames .. will make picture smoother .. just because you no longer see these frames..but this is illusion,not because you see this 60 frames..

30 fps probably would be sufficient (sufficient, not good), if it was actually locked at 30 fps, but on PS3 at least that is sadly not the case at all.

In MP, to me it feels like it peaks at 30 fps, that's with nothing happening. Even a 1v1 firefight causes it to drop. Explosions going off all around really cause it to plummet, and its not nice at all.

Personally I believe that one of the main reasons that CoD has dominated the console shooter market this gen is because of its 60 fps. Once everyone got used to 60 fps in CoD, going to another shooter at 30 fps feels uncomfortable, no matter how good its other features and graphics may be.

Thus you can understand PC guys who are used to 60+fps looking at the console version and saying "yuck, how do you play on that?!" its because they are used to things looking better. I've played a bit of C2 MP on my parents PC, and its most def not a gaming machine, but it runs C2 sooooo much smoother than my PS3. Its so much nicer.

In all likelyhood i will save up this year to get a medium-ish spec PC for C3, if it looks like it will deliver on the promises of gameplay and controls like the originals. I'm sick of the PS3's dodgy framerate in shooters, that's my main motivation.

30 fps probably would be sufficient (sufficient, not good), if it was actually locked at 30 fps, but on PS3 at least that is sadly not the case at all.

In MP, to me it feels like it peaks at 30 fps, that's with nothing happening. Even a 1v1 firefight causes it to drop. Explosions going off all around really cause it to plummet, and its not nice at all.

Personally I believe that one of the main reasons that CoD has dominated the console shooter market this gen is because of its 60 fps. Once everyone got used to 60 fps in CoD, going to another shooter at 30 fps feels uncomfortable, no matter how good its other features and graphics may be.

Thus you can understand PC guys who are used to 60+fps looking at the console version and saying "yuck, how do you play on that?!" its because they are used to things looking better. I've played a bit of C2 MP on my parents PC, and its most def not a gaming machine, but it runs C2 sooooo much smoother than my PS3. Its so much nicer.

In all likelyhood i will save up this year to get a medium-ish spec PC for C3, if it looks like it will deliver on the promises of gameplay and controls like the originals. I'm sick of the PS3's dodgy framerate in shooters, that's my main motivation.

Never played COD (a waste of money) .. but developers make 60 fps just because they can not give good graphics, animations, lighting, sounds and etc .. COD engine sh1t it is quake 3 arena engine with minor modifications ..

better play on 30 fps but with good graphics, animations, lighting, sounds and etc .. than play with sh1t sounds, lighting,graphics and etc but on 60 fps ..

game came out every year .. they do not give something new in game (they just copie-past every year same sh1t) .. they just not respect the players, buyers at least ..

Honestly .. I do not understand people who buy this crap..i can understand kids ... but advlt people who buy this sh1t every year i dont understand..

Never played COD (a waste of money) ..

Strong opinion on something you have "never played". Thats the internet for ya

Yes, anything above the so called 24 FPS is an illusion.
But tell me this, is an illusion not visible?

As for me, I just play some Skulltag @ 35 FPS @ 640x480, windowed.
And I'd play Crysis 2 @ 35 FPS too, if it wasn't genuinely choppy (as if it's 20 FPS).

But he's right about the Quake 3 engine.
And in case you haven't noticed, that engine is from (O_O) 1999.