Comfy, lets stop making assumptions and lets just WAIT for side by side footage. Right now people are basing it off of Live Footage versus Live Footage which ISNT finished, lets be frank.

Comfy, I KNOW the PC version will look better then the Xbox and PS3, BUT unless you intend on Very High, your not going to get THAT high of 1up over Consoles and DEFINITELY wont be Generation differences.

generation differences aren't that big y'know :p look at hitman blood money on the ps2 and then gears of war 1 on the xbox 360. There's a difference, but it's easily comparable to something like gears of war to crysis. That's what i call a generation gap. it's not designed to be 'zomg consoles svck' it's designed to be 'zomg, pc tech is 6 years newer'.

Anyways, ya, both version should kick ass, but the PC version has a lot more to prove than the console version, as it's following up the best looking game of all time (something that is out of reach of consoles already - i'm not talking about medium, i'm talking about very high 1920x1080 - the real crysis experience, no amount of optimization will get that experience on consoles, which is why the ce3 demo of the first level ran at low tex/medium/high shaders with an artificially low draw distance at around 20fps a while back)! So I guess i'm being a bit harsher on the PC version, and as such stating the minimum gap between versions it needs to attain to be a sequel to crysis

Also, of course i'm looking at very high bloodyghost! If i wasn't then i could say 'no there won't be a big gap' because i'm playing on medium o.O, i want to see crytek push the PC platform instead of stagnating it. I want them to do that because they'll have finally nailed a cross platform engine that does justice to ALL platforms, not just 2.

Additionally, with regards to 1up over consoles, if it's not large, they may as well have used the unreal engine. Crytek will have failed at graphics in such a case. Which has never happened, so i have trust that they will ^^

This isn't 'being an elitist' or some crap like that, because the equivalent of what you're saying is that 'zomg the 360 version won't be better than the wii version by much' for a game spanning those two platforms (in fact, the difference from 360>average PC's is larger, but you get the idea). Instead of acting like i'm being unreasonable and trying to slate consoles (as you should have noticed that i own all 'real' platforms [i.e. not wii]), see it from the point of view of HOW much more powerful PC hardware is. It's not twice as much, it's around 7-8 TIMES MORE [graphically] POWERFUL for ￡100 gpu's. 7-8 TIMES! My card is around 10 times more powerful. the average PC is at least 6 times more powerful.

FINAL THOUGHT for you though bloody

Q: Why is the PC version of CE3 demos marked as 'next gen ready'?
A: http://www.ripten.com/2010/11/25/crytek-pc-is-a-generation-ahead-of-consoles-sam-n/

Gamers don`t change that...and why would i care if they change it to 'fit' on consoles? I don`t.

Some people on this site are in a negative spiral towards every game thats out there waiting for you to enjoy...yet they trash everything that`s out there because its on consoles. Acting like they deserve more because they have better hardware then a console. Its your own choice to upgrade hardware!!

2 cents from me.......Haters will hate, gamers will game.

I'm not negative towards every game out there. I looked forward to Crysis Warhead and was completely satisfied with that game.
There is really no excuse. Crytek has only made PC games so far. Each of their games have been million sellers (Crysis sold 3.5 million copies). So why is it that they're focusing on consoles?


You where COMPLETELY satisfied....That`s all you need to know. Trust your favorite company.

3.5 + 10 million= Crysis 3 and much more. Rational thinking is what comes to mind.

Do you really think you can`t lean, prone, granade, run, jump, suit menu, large levels and vehicles in a single console game??
Like many people said including the big boss, its not the limitations of consoles (there are limits i know) its a choice made by Crytek to give you and the other 13 million people the best experience possible.

No, I like Crytek, but they're not my favourite. In fact, I have no favourite company because blind loyalty to a company is idiotic. I was satisfied with Crysis Warhead because it looked promising and it delivered. Crysis 2 does not look promising.

As for the abilities of consoles, they cannot do all that because of technical and controller limitations. The original Crysis has Xbox 360 controller support but many movement options were taken out. Not only that, but about half the buttons had to have multiple mappings (press for one function, hold for another). It doesn't take a genius to figure out that removal of lean, prone, and the suit menu were due to the gamepad.

Vehicles control terribly on consoles. How many console FPSs have vehicles in multiplayer? The most prominent example is Halo and you cannot look at a direction without the vehicle automatically moving there. That's absolutely horrible control. Imagine driving a car in real life and having it turn automatically wherever you are looking. There would cause massive traffic accidents.

As for large levels. Cevat himself said that Crysis is not possible on consoles because of lack of level streaming. Do you know why Crysis 2 takes place in New York? Giant buildings. Buildings are used to cover parts of the level so that they do not need to be fit into the tiny amount of RAM that the consoles have.

You also missed the 6vs6 maximum player limit.

So let's see how consoles have affected Crysis 2 (reason why in brackets):
- 6 vs 6 maximum player limit in multiplayer (consoles may lag with too many nanosuits on screen and typically consoles do not use dedicated servers)
- City setting with buildings everywhere blocking your view from going too far (consoles have too little RAM to fit more of the level)
- No vehicles in multiplayer (maps are now too small)
- No lean, prone, or suit menu (not enough buttons on the gameplay)
- Story is almost restarted and will most likely only have minor references to the original Crysis (consoles can't handle the original)
- Far fewer physics objects (console CPUs are too weak)

To pretend that consoles have not had radical effects on Crysis 2's development would be ignorant, foolish, and downright insulting to the intelligence of PC gamers.

My favourite game developer is arenanet Still wouldn't buy a game of theirs if it turned out crap though.

There is lot of logic in your post hark, but logic can be wrong if we have limited information (like that the Earth was flat). What do we really know about game developing. We only red 2 pages of the whole book and we think it's bad, like island is better than city or 6vs6 is worse. How do you know, did you play Crysis 2?

First we should play Crysis 2 and then compare it to Crysis 1, everything else is just blind guess.

Indeed, the multiplayer could be amazing or crap, but i'll be on the fence until i play it myself. But all the statements about no lean ect. are indeed true.

There is lot of logic in your post hark, but logic can be wrong if we have limited information (like that the Earth was flat). What do we really know about game developing. We only red 2 pages of the whole book and we think it's bad, like island is better than city or 6vs6 is worse. How do you know, did you play Crysis 2?

First we should play Crysis 2 and then compare it to Crysis 1, everything else is just blind guess.

History shows that games transitioning from a PC focus to a console focus turn out horridly. I'm still looking forward to the game, but I've lost a lot of hope.

I do agree a little hark, best to play the pessimist card until we play the game.

However, to be honest, even if it's not better than the original crysis, it'll still be better than any of the other fps **** that's been coming out.

Well Comfy I agree with you on that. Even my fave FPS game of 2010, Halo Reach, was a little watered down to Halo 3.

For some odd reason, I liked Halo 3 far better than Reach,. I wonder why?

I do agree a little hark, best to play the pessimist card until we play the game.

However, to be honest, even if it's not better than the original crysis, it'll still be better than any of the other fps **** that's been coming out.
Whilst i can agree that in life, it's better to keep your hopes at a trained level in order not to feel huge disappointment but be happy when things do work out, i can't agree that you should drop your hopes so low that you become pessimistic towards anything in life.

I do agree a little hark, best to play the pessimist card until we play the game.

However, to be honest, even if it's not better than the original crysis, it'll still be better than any of the other fps **** that's been coming out.
Whilst i can agree that in life, it's better to keep your hopes at a trained level in order not to feel huge disappointment but be happy when things do work out, i can't agree that you should drop your hopes so low that you become pessimistic towards anything in life.

Sweetly and inspiringly true.

I do agree a little hark, best to play the pessimist card until we play the game.

However, to be honest, even if it's not better than the original crysis, it'll still be better than any of the other fps **** that's been coming out.
Whilst i can agree that in life, it's better to keep your hopes at a trained level in order not to feel huge disappointment but be happy when things do work out, i can't agree that you should drop your hopes so low that you become pessimistic towards anything in life.
Quote of the day.

I do agree a little hark, best to play the pessimist card until we play the game.

However, to be honest, even if it's not better than the original crysis, it'll still be better than any of the other fps **** that's been coming out.
Whilst i can agree that in life, it's better to keep your hopes at a trained level in order not to feel huge disappointment but be happy when things do work out, i can't agree that you should drop your hopes so low that you become pessimistic towards anything in life.

More than just a saying, it's a way of true life.

For some odd reason, I liked Halo 3 far better than Reach,. I wonder why?
I did too! Its weird, Halo Reach is great but I think the armor abilities changed its formula drastically.

I do agree a little hark, best to play the pessimist card until we play the game.

However, to be honest, even if it's not better than the original crysis, it'll still be better than any of the other fps **** that's been coming out.
Whilst i can agree that in life, it's better to keep your hopes at a trained level in order not to feel huge disappointment but be happy when things do work out, i can't agree that you should drop your hopes so low that you become pessimistic towards anything in life.

Oh no, not towards everything in life, just crysis 2 atm I blame these forums and the seemingly lack of interest in the PC platform (although i'm sure that the PC platform has had tons of attention) for making me a crysis 2 pessimist.

Guild wars 2 though, that's a game i'm really looking forward to ^^

Also note that my level of pessimism is: 'probably not as good as crysis 1 but still fun', so i'm assuming you guys can probably beat that ^^

yup exactly... currently im playing halo reach until crysis comes out and i thought this game had stellar graphics until i watched the crysis 2 vids.
Halo Reach is good looking at times, there is a GREAT job with the textures and scenery at times, but still dont like the kind of art style they injected it with. Ya in the bright areas it looks kinda cell shaded

what i want to know is where do ppl buy these $550 computers that can play crysis on high i have looked but never found one so cheap that was actually good.

what i want to know is where do ppl buy these $550 computers that can play crysis on high i have looked but never found one so cheap that was actually good.

You can build one for ~$500-$600 that can play crysis on high at 720p. AMD processors are pretty cheap and an X3 paired with a 5770 can definitely run Crysis at high. Search around on Newegg.com and tigerdirect for parts.

I built one this summer for $500 that plays crysis just fine on high (very high even).

what i want to know is where do ppl buy these $550 computers that can play crysis on high i have looked but never found one so cheap that was actually good.

You can build one for ~$500-$600 that can play crysis on high at 720p. AMD processors are pretty cheap and an X3 paired with a 5770 can definitely run Crysis at high. Search around on Newegg.com and tigerdirect for parts.

I built one this summer for $500 that plays crysis just fine on high (very high even).
thx for the info i may rustle up some cash and build one

PS3 dont get Dedicated Servers, ACTUALLY there **** isnt even FIXED. Jailbreak ring a bell? Black Ops maybe shutting down its PS3 servers?

MS is a good company, same with Activision.

Forbes humped Activision Blizzards legs because of how much there making and how there good.

Also MS is making mad money with Kinect, PS3 Move is doing good but not great.

Im not trying to sound like im sticking up for the Xbox 360, but your coming off as attacking certain platforms.

Please tell me you don't actually buy into what activision are saying about the recent hacks? Do you honestly think that is the reason why the servers may be going? Let me tell you first hand. My PS3 is completely hacked. I have a 3.55 CFW and I can do anything I want with the platform now. Develop on it, run legitimate backups (or illegitimate for the piracy folks) so on and so on.

But the recent hack is just an excuse for activision to shift the blame from themselves onto the hackers. Hacking like stat manipulation and other methods have existed on the PS3 and even the 360 well before the PS3 was officially hacked with the jailbreak or now with the keys. In fact non of the "scene" developers are even working on PSN type hacks because of the fact that Sony owns it. They only want to hack what they own which is the console itself. Nothing tied to the online.

Activision just love passing the blame for their own incompetence onto either Piracy or hackers so the masses will believe hackers are the scum of the earth and are harming their precious platform. When most hackers are only interested in running their own code and not cheating on PSN. At least 90% of the people I talk to on a daily basis on one of the hacking forums.

In relation to Acitivison vs EA. Activision are a bunch of incompetent morons who stifle innovation and will only go for what works. EA in all honesty has had a lot better track record besides a few instances on all platforms. They don't stifle innovation like Activision do. Activision are the next Microsoft, a bunch of greedy incompetent morons who only stick with a sure thing instead of pushing their developers to innovate. Plus they have one hell of a good poker face. They'll promise you features from sun up to sun down and then spit in your face when they tell you no you aren't getting it.

Look I, meaning me, dont buy into Activision.

Hell, EA knows that Picture of the company is really great in gaining popularity with gamers aka what EA is doing.

Activision, tho, sits on top of cash and doesnt care. Its just giving WHAT the people want, and it is clearly COD and WoW.

Activision doesnt listen to those hardcoe gamers like most on here and other gaming forums, it listens to the fans.

All the fans want is more of the same. Little risk for them, big money back. Its a win-win.

I'm not surprised that bloodyghost buys whatever is tossed his way.

nice comeback, I fully respect you now. /s

It's not a comeback when I'm the initiator.