| curl-6 said: 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. |
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.
