All I know is that when it comes to visuals, Crytek knows what to do. So with that in mind, I'm not even going to try and debate how they should have gone about it. If they think the game looks amazing visually I'm going to take their word on it unless I see otherwise.

excuses and more excuses, watching a game running 60 frames is a joy for the eyes, he just justifying the xbox one that it looks is not capable of handling that framerate. 

Is somehow contradictory on when it says: 

"we wanted to go for a very emotional experience with complex and dramatic lighting, high fidelity environments, and rich characters and character animations. So 30fps was our choice, and we believe that most developers will go for richer worlds at 30 frames per second rather than 60fps – which would call for compromises, as 60fps demands twice the amount of compute rendering speed." 

So they choose 30 fps because they want to ? or 60fps demands twice the amount of compute rendering speed. ? 

ok then so why the game cant be  native 1080p ? they choose 900p instead 1080p because is better ?

This just looks like his justifying the incapacity of certain things the xbone can't perform.  

Why linking it from Dualshockers when it's a Eurogamer article?

Both consoles are quite similar (AMD GPU and CPU) what we'll probably see this gen is Xbone games running at lower resolutions than the PS4 equivalent due to the deficit in raw compute performance and more difficult memory and bandwidth management. That's all. I doubt frame rate will be a major factor so long as they drop the resolution. Everything else though should be the same.

Contrast that with this gen to cite just one example the high bandwidth available to the 360 gave it superior alpha transparency effects while the CELL gave the PS3 better particle effects.

Crytek has delivered on everything they have said. They said the game would look better afther the change and it does.

So even for a 900p framebuffer with MSAA 32MB is not enough.... he pretty much give the reason for Ryse not run in 1080p... you have to deal with eSRAM.

30 vs 60fps is a design choice...if the SP/MP is fast it is needed but for most of games not.

i always doubted we would see many 60 fps games next gen, even if some people praised it as the holy grail. you can't see fps on screenshots, you can't see it on youtube (or do you?).
i mean, if a game needs double the amount of power to render double the frames, most developers would go for better graphics...

They are not using MSAA though. But I get you're point, it's a situation much like the 360 where resolution was dropped to avoid tiling and fit all the rendering targets in the 10MB EDRAM thus taking advantage of the high bandwidth afforded by it.

I know... I just used his example

To make a comparison a 1080p framebuffer with good MSAA needs close to 70MB of RAM... MS knows that so for that they inserted 4x DMEs in Xbone to try to move fast data between DDR3 and eSRAM but the bad part is that you need to chance your code to do that with a good performance because you still have the slow DRR3 to work.

At the end the dev will compromisse what they need fair (like most important for their game) to get a good performance.

I think we have these scenario on Xbone:

• 1080p@30fps with bad AA
• 900p@60fps with bad AA
• 900p@30fps with good AA
• 720p@60fps with good AA
• Few exceptions (1080p@60fps, 900p@60fps with good AA, etc)... most of them when the learn how to deal with eSRAM and MS optimize the devtools to make it use less complicated

You would've thought after the limitations of only 10MB EDRAM on the 360 MS would've learnt their lesson and put in enough ESRAM to afford a 1080p res with all the bells and whistles. But I have also read the Xbone has a very good scaler which upscales to 1080p quite nicely and it also has a seperate display plane for the HUD and apps which can always be 1080p.