CGI-Quality said:
This would make more sense if the original Crysis was optimized for PC, but it too was not. No, it didn't have the issues the console versions of Crysis 2 have, but it still wasn't an ideal way to craft a game. It's much less a fault of the hardware and much more a fault of Crytek. |
Crysis 1 was also their original engine, which annihilated every benchmark imaginable in gaming. There's a big difference here. See, you'd be absolutely correct if Warhead didn't vastly improve upon every technical issue that Crysis 1 had (which it did). However, this is a new engine, not just upgraded from CryEngine 1, this was likely a ground-up rebuild so that it had resource management to properly utilize SPE's and PPE on the PS3 and the 360's integrated GPU and Tri-Core processor, as well as handling the tremendous amount of variety of hardware available for PC. And how was it not optimized for PC? One of the first DX10 games (Company of Heroes, I believe was the first), and basically held the mark that every other developer wished they could touch with regards to environmental, and character detail. To say nothing of the Sandbox nature of Crysis 1/Warhead (which was awesome).
Ultimately, the game's a failure, not for technical issues, but because of all the sacrifices they had to make, in order to
put it on console. Gone is the sandbox combat, gone is the variety of the power suit (combining powers to make it easier to adapt to controller, is not what I'd call an 'improvement'), but, again, that's the sacrifice that has to be made to get things on console. Static hardware has it's advantages, yes, but Dynamic hardware offers so much more. And for those who enjoy it, that's great, I'm happy for ya. However, I just don't buy those games. I didn't make any sacrifices building my PC, and I damn sure won't pay for a game that doesn't at least come close to utilizing my hardware properly.
