[quote][quote]

Scapegoat, especially taken together with bad ports from console, yes.

But that mostly stems from not trusting a good developer to stay good.[/quote]

I do understand why PC gamers are worried for the quality of the game being dumbed down to run on the consoles and they will try to make the game work for all systems will cause it to possibly not be as good than the first (or something along those lines) But they have said that it will optimize all systems (Im not sure if thats true or not I might be miss-remembering) but I think It will be a good game on all systems and we dont need to worry. About what you said with the port from consoles do you know if it being ported from the consoles or what?


[/quote]

Crytek uses a tool called LiveCreate, so they can develop on the PC CryEngine 3 and have it automatically create three versions of the game instantly, scaling the graphics for each system.

I'd also go for at least 8vs8. 6vs6 seems,feels and sounds too empty.

I'm mainly a PC gamer but I do have a PS3 and a Wii. I ,for one, got nothing against consoles, hell I game with them almost everday. Altho as a PC gamer the only thing I don't like from consoles is the FPS genre, IMO and I know this is very selfish, should have never been introduced.
Why? Simply because of the controls... there's no fluidity, no freedom of movement, aiming where you want to shoot feels like it takes an eternity. I know I know it take time... blah, blah, blah...

I truly believe there's nothing better than the Keyboard + Mouse combo, BUT, I do know when to put them aside for games like DMC or the Prince Of Persia series or SW: The Force Unleashed and only on those types of games is where you can actually feel some fluidity abd freedom on the console's controllers.

BTW! Star Wars: The Force Unleashed for PC is a REALY good example of a bad port! Donno how the game is with the patchs (if they released any).

Here's an example why I do blame a little on the consoles. There's some footage of the Single Player part of the game where the player is doing some "leaning" and that's one of the things I don't like about the game and it feels very dumbed down. The lean action can only be executed if near some type of cover, and that makes the game feel a bit mediocre and generic and on a keyboard you just had to press Q or E to lean left and right. Also prone it seems, has been cut off to boot.

But whatever, I can live with that. I just hope they learn alot from this instalment and if they are really going to do a triology I hope the 3rd one will blow every console and PC fanboys away to smitherins

[quote]I'd also go for at least 8vs8. 6vs6 seems,feels and sounds too empty.

I'm mainly a PC gamer but I do have a PS3 and a Wii. I ,for one, got nothing against consoles, hell I game with them almost everday. Altho as a PC gamer the only thing I don't like from consoles is the FPS genre, IMO and I know this is very selfish, should have never been introduced.
Why? Simply because of the controls... there's no fluidity, no freedom of movement, aiming where you want to shoot feels like it takes an eternity. I know I know it take time... blah, blah, blah...

I truly believe there's nothing better than the Keyboard + Mouse combo, BUT, I do know when to put them aside for games like DMC or the Prince Of Persia series or SW: The Force Unleashed and only on those types of games is where you can actually feel some fluidity abd freedom on the console's controllers.

BTW! Star Wars: The Force Unleashed for PC is a REALY good example of a bad port! Donno how the game is with the patchs (if they released any).

Here's an example why I do blame a little on the consoles. There's some footage of the Single Player part of the game where the player is doing some "leaning" and that's one of the things I don't like about the game and it feels very dumbed down. The lean action can only be executed if near some type of cover, and that makes the game feel a bit mediocre and generic and on a keyboard you just had to press Q or E to lean left and right. Also prone it seems, has been cut off to boot.

But whatever, I can live with that. I just hope they learn alot from this instalment and if they are really going to do a triology I hope the 3rd one will blow every console and PC fanboys away to smitherins [/quote]

First person shooters aren't too bad on a console, once you get used to the controller.

My accuracy on Console: ~20%
My accuracy on PC: ~50%

Sure, console is a lot lower, but people that don't have the money for a high end PC can still enjoy a good shooter against other people that only land one out of every five shots. xD

What the next console generation needs, is some true keyboard and mouse support as an option, and the hardware would then also be powerful enough for modding like the Sandbox 3 with the AI and Flowgraph and whatnot.

[quote]
First person shooters aren't too bad on a console, once you get used to the controller.

My accuracy on Console: ~20%
My accuracy on PC: ~50%

Sure, console is a lot lower, but people that don't have the money for a high end PC can still enjoy a good shooter against other people that only land one out of every five shots. xD

What the next console generation needs, is some true keyboard and mouse support as an option, and the hardware would then also be powerful enough for modding like the Sandbox 3 with the AI and Flowgraph and whatnot.[/quote]

Basically you want a difficult/impossible to upgrade significantly PC with lots of proprietary hardware for semi-cheap? I suppose the last factor disqualifies Mac, along with wanting to game on it. Try HP. While I don't argue the theory, I think that's what you just said...

[quote][quote]

First person shooters aren't too bad on a console, once you get used to the controller.

My accuracy on Console: ~20%

My accuracy on PC: ~50%

Sure, console is a lot lower, but people that don't have the money for a high end PC can still enjoy a good shooter against other people that only land one out of every five shots. xD

What the next console generation needs, is some true keyboard and mouse support as an option, and the hardware would then also be powerful enough for modding like the Sandbox 3 with the AI and Flowgraph and whatnot.[/quote]

Basically you want a difficult/impossible to upgrade significantly PC with lots of proprietary hardware for semi-cheap? I suppose the last factor disqualifies Mac, along with wanting to game on it. Try HP. While I don't argue the theory, I think that's what you just said...[/quote]


Lolwut? I'm exclusively a PC player anymore, I custom build mine. When I used to play on PS3 a lot though, my accuracy would be around 20%. Its damn low, but it is still manageable when everyone else is shooting just as bad.

Besides, for the PS3 atleast, it is much cheaper than a PC and it is good to get the first person shooter genre out to everyone, not just the more priviledged.

If you read the last paragraph of what I quoted, my response to it would probably make sense, especially if you flip the switch to turn your sense of humor on first. We call it a joke.

I'm sorry, but it is rather hard to find hints at sarcasm through only text, when in a conversation you can hear the dipping in someones voice indicating their sarcrastic attitude.

Picky picky picky.

Crytek, for its great games of the past, had some kind of pioneer charackter in my opinion. You know, pushing things to their limit (technically spoken).

With their decision to bring it on consoles...they left that pioneering spirit
behind.

Now all consoleros and sympathizers talk about making more profit.
A reasonable argument indeed.

But:

If the creators of pong, Tetris and doom wanted to make profit at those days... they would have programmed something else.
A prog. helping you make your taxes or somethin, or another OS.
But against all capitalistic senses they wanted to do something new.. something more interesting and fun.
Nowadays its all about money... no one gives a shiath about pushing the limits and go beyond the known possibilities of hardware anymore.
Its so sad.

And i blame the consoles for that.

Consoles and multiplatform releases are the doom of inventive games.

Going beyond the "known" limits of hardware, these days, requires near photorealism, or some truly innovative input.

The budget to develop it would be huge.

They would need to pull a profit out of it, or they would proceed to be in all kinds of trouble.

Pushing the envelope now is NOT pushing the envelope then. Also, may I point out that the makers of Pong, Tetris, and Doom DID in fact make a profit.

Now realize that the already lower than console sales numbers PCs get would only be reduced in a photorealistic game by hardware limitations.
By the time people had the hardware, there would likely be a crack out.
Crytek would then be the world record holder for most money lost with a single game produced, cease to exist, and NEVER be able to push the envelope again.

Yeah becuase Crysis 1 was such a financial disaster IT WAS THE ONLY HOPE FOR CRYTEK to survive.

Thats bullshmith and you know it Jingle.

Its all about increasing already good incomes. Fact!

If youre right than Crysis 1 has never been made, because Pcs and its owners are all Pirates and the only copies been sold are the ones the crews needet to rip.

Cryteks gettin greedy...greed leads to **** as s consolized crapgames.

I'm a PC gamer and I clearly don't believe EVERYONE is a pirate. However, the sort of budget needed for photorealism would be closer to a movie budget than a video game budget. This would drive up release prices, slow down early purchases, which would keep prices high, and all the factors that *actually* lead to piracy would be in conjunction. Lets go with say... 35m to produce. Probably not a perfect guess, but reasonable enough, hopefully. Now, assuming a million sales, covering ongoing overhead, taxes, everything else, they would need to sell a million copies (very reasonable) at $75-$80 a copy. They wouldn't make THAT much money, certainly wouldn't have the sort of capital left over to do it again. Now that makes little sense to do.

And FYI, check this link for a good breakdown on Piracy.
http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html

No edit:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_5.html
that would be the best page to start reading at to do some quick math in your head. Although your "greedy corporation" rant already gives me a hint which side of the argument you're likely to be on.

Good point jinglehell,
I agree whit both of you and its a much debated subject.
Looking at the leap forward the games industry made the last couple of years, i say consoles are good for the industry in general.

And whit the big cashflow going around it will get better on all platforms.

It all would be fine if Crytek wouldnt call it "Crysis" 2.

Its okay to create a new franchise on consoles.

Call it Crysis Manhatten or something... and maybe there will be a Pc version of it.

But for Crysis 2, i imagined a game that will beat Crysis 1 and all mods that are made for it in the dust.

I thought .. i will take a screenshot and hold a photo next to it.. and will hardly see any difference.
It takes about 4-5 years to build an engine... and you always have to keep in mind what the future hardware will be capable of.
The Cryengine 2 was a brilliant example for a good engine.
It was a huge leap forward compared to Cryengine 1.
And now we have 4 years of developement... only to optimize the **** out of the second engine, so that cheap ass consoles can barely run it.
We can talk about piracy..economics...honor...
But you and i cant ignore that one fact:
Cryengine 3 and Crysis 2 are a letdown compared to what Cryengine 2 delivered to us 4 years ago.
Its just nothing new...
In fact im more exited about Duke Nukem Forever now than im in Crysis 2 actually.
Crysis was fun because it matches the player and it matches his machine.
Crysis 2 only can rip off what we have already have seen.

I ment: Crysis 1 was challenging the player and his machine...sry

Crysis 2 isn't released yet. We haven't seen the top end PC graphics yet. Unless there's final high end full settings PC footage available for viewing that I haven't seen yet. Given that all the footage I've personally seen has been from the Xbox, and that will obviously be the lowest end textures at a miserly 720p, making assumptions that the PC will look no better is pure folly.

And feel free to get excited about Duke Nukem Forever, I won't believe it until it hits the stores, it's been announced too many times now.

[quote]With their decision to bring it on consoles...they left that pioneering spirit behind.[/quote]

Crytek have entered the console market for the first time and have completely obliterated any developer on that platform thus far. They are pushing both the 360 and PS3 technologically well beyond what any other developer has brought to the platform to date. How is that not pioneering?


Better yet, how is not taking the graphical quality of Crysis1 and then optimising it on PC to run [to quote Sean Tracy] "nearly twice as many fps as CE2 at comparable graphics quality" a milestone achievement in it's own right? Really, who cares how good a game looks if it runs at 30fps? Better asked; how many more people would care if they could get that visual quality but at 60fps, i know a hell of a lot more for the latter part.


[quote]But you and i cant ignore that one fact:
Cryengine 3 and Crysis 2 are a letdown compared to what Cryengine 2 delivered to us 4 years ago.[/quote]

Can't agree with you in the slightest on that point. I think it's a far greater technological advancement to make a Ferrari do 400KM/h than it is to make it look nice. The fact that Crytek are making a 400KM/h Ferrari look nice is just spectacular.

Well said, Shinanigans. Well said.

So its an advancement to do the see the same grfx i already saw early 2007? nope.

And the thing about pioneering:
I dont talk about console pioneering.. i talked about grfx evolution.

And thats one thing that is done on Pcs.. because you can actually explore things... with consoles its only optimizing the **** out of an engine.

[quote][quote]With their decision to bring it on consoles...they left that pioneering spirit behind.

But you and i cant ignore that one fact:

Cryengine 3 and Crysis 2 are a letdown compared to what Cryengine 2 delivered to us 4 years ago.[/quote]

Crytek have entered the console market for the first time and have completely obliterated any developer on that platform thus far. They are pushing both the 360 and PS3 technologically well beyond what any other developer has brought to the platform to date. How is that not pioneering?

Better yet, how is not taking the graphical quality of Crysis1 and then optimising it on PC to run [to quote Sean Tracy] "nearly twice as many fps as CE2 at comparable graphics quality" a milestone achievement in it's own right? Really, who cares how good a game looks if it runs at 30fps? Better asked; how many more people would care if they could get that visual quality but at 60fps, i know a hell of a lot more for the latter part.

Can't agree with you in the slightest on that point. I think it's a far greater technological advancement to make a Ferrari do 400KM/h than it is to make it look nice. The fact that Crytek are making a 400KM/h Ferrari look nice is just spectacular.[/quote]

Very very very well said. I agree 100%


[quote]So its an advancement to do the see the same grfx i already saw early 2007? nope.

And the thing about pioneering:
I dont talk about console pioneering.. i talked about grfx evolution.

And thats one thing that is done on Pcs.. because you can actually explore things... with consoles its only optimizing the **** out of an engine.[/quote]

If you didnt realize, CryEngine 2 is not nearly as future proof as people would like to think it is. It only uses 25-30% of the third and fourth cores of a Quad Core, which makes the game severely GPU limited, because not enough of the game processes are done on the Processor.

CryEngine 3 is looking to balance out the difference in CPU and GPU loads, which will give all of us the maximum fps possible for our rig. I for one, am just fine with the graphics of Crysis being in Crysis 2. What i would really like is to be able to run those graphics at 100fps instead of the current 50 on medium, or 60fps on high instead of the current 30fps with 4xAA. THAT is what Crytek is setting out to do with the CryEngine 3. It isnt an advancement in technology so much as a REFINEMENT in technology.