Lol it will never be moot. PCs will always have more graphics processing power, and therefore always have better graphics. To think otherwise is just naive.

You're going to look real silly when the next gen come out.

I'm done arguing with you Mickey, you're not worth it

Lol, so you waste so many words discussing money, completely fail to address the point I made and then attempt to take some kind of high ground?

Good luck with that, but you still haven't refuted anything I've actually said.. You've refuted plenty of things I never said though so bravo ;)

I've heard alot of people bagging the beta (a three month old beta mind). I'm not disappointed in the graphics at all. They stand up to COD easily IMO. We'll have to wait and see how the full game goes. I'm super keen for it tho.

One thing you have to remember tho is that there is a hell of alot more going on, even in Operation Metro, compared to Crysis 2.

Crysis 2 has small CoD style death match arenas, Battlefield 3 has huge open maps wih lots of **** to blow up and trees to knock over, missles launching etc. also with alot more players on the map than Crysis 2. With graphics its important to compare apples with apples

I also think the BF3 framerate is more reliable than Crysis 2 (on PS3)

As for the Console lead Vs PC lead "debate":

My opinion: Crysis 1 is a better game than Crysis 2, and BF3 looks to be a much better game than MW3. Sadly a better game doesn't necessarily mean better sales *cough* black ops *cough*, but hopefully that will change this year

the point you made was also invalidated by your own words when you discussed "good developers staying good" in relation to great console games that were never leadplatformed for the PC.....but wait.....even if a game was born on consoles it would benefit from PC developement because pc can throw more power at it.........well that would be great if what made a game great was ONLY technical achievement which is obviously not

you do not need a PC lead platformed game in order for the game to be great, you never will unless in order to be "great" you need pure "technical achievement" or "hardware pushing" features

YOU are also the one who said there is more money in PC developement , just throwing it there.

There will come a time, likely not in the next generation, in which "resource budget" will not be an issue anymore when it comes to graphical fidelity and other features. At that point this discussion will be utterly moot

again, you have proven at length you are one of the "enlighted pc master race" crowd.....you are not worth arguing with, you never will be

Why are you focusing on technical achievement when that is only a portion of PC-lead games? Generally PC games also make use of more features as I have already mentioned. For example, the console version of BF3 will now bet getting a server browser, something which few console games have had in recent years.

The reason I said 'good developers staying good' is because all developers started with PC games, as development is done on PCs, and early work for a developer is obviously not going to be on a console game, which is more expensive to distribute. whether the company itself has ever made a PC game is irrelevant considering that it is the developers doing the work.


In a sense this is true, but whether or not a game NEEDS to be PC-lead is irrelevant when the developers are perfectly able to add these features and depth to console games, but choose not to. When a game is PC-lead the developers are under pressure to provide as close to the PC experience on consoles as is possible, which results in the console players getting these things, which are typical for PC games.


And overall there is, but this is still irrelevant to the point I've been making throughout.


In what way will the point be moot? If you want to talk purely about resources, the consoles will never again be on par with PCs in processing power; therefore console-lead games will always be made to the lesser hardware specifications and always underperform on PCs.

On the actual gameplay front, a game which focuses on console development will always be more 'casual' because that is what the majority of the audience are.


Lol you always try to finish on comments like this as if it's going to have some profound effect of making you somehow win the argument. You're still yet to refute my claim, and do everything you can to shift the discussion.

Address the point. Perhaps I should phrase it differently; Can you say definitively any way in which a PC-lead game is NOT better for console gamers?

Double post

I don't care whether or not Crytek is becoming console-centric or not, I'm a console gamer, and I like Crysis. Can't wait for Crysis 3, and I still play Crysis 2.

Honestly I Think They Should Put Warhead On Consoles. It Would Be Amazing To Play Since I Don't Own Or Can Afford A $1000 Plus Gaming Computer. If They Manage To Put Warhead On Console(Which Should Be Possible Since They Did It With The First Game) They Should Add A Feature To Have The Ability To Use The Nanosuit Wheel Like In The PC Version. I Think That Would Make The Game Even Better

@SUNNY_LEGUNA

Yes you are right. There's definitely a lot more going on on BF3 big and open maps than Crysis 2's or COD's maps. I never thought of BF's deustructible maps until you mentioned it.
But I think I'm not that much into 'realistic' warfare games like Battlefield, most of the time I didn't even know where I got shot from in the BF3 beta on my PS3. I really like Crysis 2 more because it's fast paced.