Please, no.  Let Crysis die.  Crysis 3 was one of the most soulless games I've ever played and the "story" is basically a bad SyFy movie now.  Let them start over with a new IP.

I was speaking purely from a graphical and academic point of view, as it's unlikely I would ever play said game.

The Xbox was lacking in terms of graphical showcase right from the beginning, except Ryse.
Last gen, games heavily relied on existing engines and this worked exceptionally good on the 360 and not that much on PS3, resulting in the multiplatform domination.
This gen, games are using their own engines more and engines like frostbite favor the more powerful hardware, as it should be.
MS is at fault here not putting emphasis on graphical showcases the hardware is of course able to do - something that Sony always had in mind, since PSX. If you want people to buy a console, you have to convince them with a wow-effect.
From a pure gaming point of view, the decision of making Halo 5 60fps was definitely right but it got a lot of criticism because of the way it looks and I would've liked a split between sp and mp framerates like with Gears now.
Forza being 60fps is also something that is truly amazing on this console and what they achieved but again, it's nothing that wows people like a 30fps Driveclub. Now with FH3 this has changed and I am glad that Gears and FH3 now show what the hardware is able to do, despite the worse hardware. I think before the image was made even worse in comparison because MS made the "wrong" decision when prioritizing development on exclusive games.

Gears has always been fairly linear/on rails. Microsoft played it safe with Gears 4 to being it to the next generation with minimal issues... And they succeeded.
It's a great looking game that runs great and stays true to the original formula.
Let's see if they try and push the boundries with Gears 5. :)

Crysis 4 would be good to see if Crytek wen't back to what made the original FarCry and Crysis great.. And pushed the PC.
The franchise never made it up to the first games standard once it wen't multiplatform with Crysis 2.

FarCry was fairly soulless as well.
Crysis originally took the Premise and setting of that game (Swapping out mutants for Aliens) and pushed the premise with technology.

The main attraction for me with the early FarCry and Crysis games was more or less the open-exploration of the world, rather than the story and how beatiful they looked on PC.

Microsoft should have included decent hardware to begin with.

And although Halo 5 is 60fps, it's probably wise to acknowledge that the entire game doesn't run at 60fps.
Many texture animations are like 10-15fps. And even Spartans which are 2D sprites in the distance are something like 10fps and it's stupidly jarring.

There was far to many compromises in Halo 5 for it to hit 60fps... And the image quality was impacted severely because it.
The game was also rushed, hence the minimal content for the game which has been rolled out in various patches over time... (Sadly most people moved on before those patches dropped.)

Even on more powerful hardware like PS4, 60fps would have caused compromises. To me it was the wrong decision and you are right by mentioning some of the short-commings of MS' bestest IP they have.

1080p60 is heavy even for PS4, that's why we barely see this in Sony 1st party games, if at all. They know it's a too massive hit on the hardware and decided to go for bells and whistles where they were always strong with.

it's a weird place in that a lot of gamers want 1080*60 fps especially when it comes to multiplayer but going for a 1080*30fps locked with better allround graphics is just better for marketing and PR when showing off how good a game looks.

people really have some nostalgia goggles when it comes to that game. i dont understand why people still think it looks so great when there are a lot of games that look considerably better. Tomb Raider, Uncharted, Infamous, Driveclub, Forza Horizon, Doom, MGS5, The Division and The Order for example.

Well. Halo 5 isn't a 1080P, 60fps game anyway, so that point is moot.
It will spend the majority of the time at a resolution lower than that just to maintain 60fps and not everything even runs at 60fps anyway.

Personally I think Battlefield Hardline and Battlefield 4 at 60fps beats out Halo 5 in the graphics stakes with 60fps.

We are talking about the Xbox here and comparing Xbox games against Xbox games, not Playstation, so mentioning Playstation exclusives is a moot point. (Unless you want to turn this into a Platform vs Platform argument?)

And the fact is, Ryse looks great even today. The gameplay might be a yawn-fest, but Cry-Engine proved how well it can push the Xbox One with it's first big showcase of that engine.
It's only been fairly recently that other games have been pushing that title away on the Xbox One graphically, yet it still can hold it's own in many aspects with it's effects.

I do actually own Ryse and many of the games you mentioned, so I have first hand experience.

Well. I did state that these consoles would struggle to obtain 1080P and 60fps before this generation even started, so you aren't telling me anything new. :P

I do prefer a lower resolution over a lower framerate though, if it means an increase in fidelity.

Crap, this makes me want to buy it. The pull is strong on this one, I must resist...

im still amazed at how well the new battlefield looks. but I am impressed with forza and the new gears.