There you go lol.

To the trained eye Crysis 2 etc looks like this:


Everything is blocky. Battlefield 3 is blocky Metro 2033 is blocky etc.

I mentioned "not talking about shaders" which are little tricks that make ugly things appear less ugly and yet you say those games look better. Next thing you tell me is that Resident Evil Revelations on 3DS looks better too :)

That and I also noticed to the fine eye that the assumption that 2 multiplatform games from the sam franchise were somehow much better than the exclusive original, that's not how multiplatforms even work, even then like you pointed out the 2nd and 3rd games didn't look all that grand like 1 did and they also didn't sell as much in the end.

We would have to wait longer to get basically the same system, so why do that? It could have release 1 or 2 years earlier.

That I disagree with. Crysis 2 was clearly  made with PS3/360 support in mind, as it was more limited in scale and complexity compared to its predecessor. 

Crysis 2/3 were made with PS360 in mind? The PC version had a lot, I mean a lot, of visual features that weren't on console. Like tesselation, global illumination, etc. That's even more ridiculous when we remeber that Crysis 1 was indeed ported to PS360!

Crysis 1 was ported, so we can assume PS360 could handle the game.

If it did, then 2 years later you would still be asking why they didnt just wait to get hardware capable of 4k.

The point is the old gen was pushed far beyond its limits and we NEEDED a new gen.

Unlike on PC, new hardware is irrelevant until Sony or MS say so.

First, it's Metro Last Light, not 2033. And BF3 isn't even on the same league. I've already talked with you in other thread about your idea of replacing PC OSs with a light OS to play games. That already convinced me that you don't know a lot about the technical aspect. But let's do it. That really showed me your "trained eye".

Crysis 3 is way more complex than Crysis 1. Of course, it isn't open world, but as we are talking about visuals, open world game usually will never be number 1. That's why C2 and C3 become more linear, because Crytek wanted to showdown their visual prowness and that demanded some concessions. You definition of shaders show that you don't know how a graphics pipeline work. Sorry.

Breaking it down, shaders are small bunches of code that will paint a pixel. That means combining the color of the texture that is over that pixel with a calculated lightning. So yes, they are directly related to the final graphics quality. You can't count them out, because a better lightning algorithm will usually improve the visuals way more than increasing the poly count. Even with poly count in mind, the sequels far exceed the original game. We could go even further, because Crysis 3 has some heavy tesselation at characters and vegetation and that increases substantially the geometry complexity.

About my list, I missed one game. Ryse also does look better than Crysis 1, and it is also better than Crysis 2 and 3 in a visual standpoint. I missed The Order also. This one is harder to compare since it is heavily postprocessed, but it could be the best looking of them all.

Crysis had to be downgraded to run on last gen systems. It ran in sub-HD, with aggressive LOD, and a chugging framerate that often hit the low 20s and even the teens during action.

And that's even with a newer and better engine to help; CE3 vs CE2 in the original.

The reduction in the world of the game was probably intended at making possible to do a big jump in visual quality. Crysis 2 looks way better than the first game, while the third game isn't much better than C2. So, even if it's unfair to the first game, the sequels look much better.

Of course, the enviroments are different, but this kind of discussion will always compare different games. Crysis 1 and 3 are way more similar than other top-visual contenders, like Shadow Fall, The Order, Ryse, Driveclub, Shadow of Mordor, etc.

Both Crysis 2 and 3 were downgraded to. Low res, aggressive LOD, chugging framerate that often hit the low 20s. What's you point? If the second and thirdy games were made to fit PS360 they will surelly perform way better than they actually do. I have Crysis 1/2/3 on my PC and Crysis 3 on my PS3. I can atest that C3 runs badly on PS3, as expected. You can just get the first level of C3 (the one on the platform with a lot of rain) as an example: the game just starts at the 15-20s and just stabilizes after you get in close ambients so there is no more rain to tax excessively the hardware.

What I'm saying is that you argument is the same old tired "it was dumbed down for consoles". If the first game was impossible to do on PS360, your argument would be true. But it isn't, they ported it. It probably isn't even as optimized as it could be since it was a late port. It just performs in a similar level than C2/C3. Why would they "dumb down" a game if it already run as it was on PS360? They cut the open world because they wanted to make the game look better. They used 40M to make Crysis 3. It wasn't feasible to apply that same quality of artwork in a huge world. They were already over the budget. And it wouldn't look as good. So they made a concession.