Console port in Crysis 2 disappointing

[Xbust]

Even after playing the demo, not impressed me greatly, I still believed that the campaign to award me with stunning visual effects. Not what it seems. So the head of Crytek said that the PC version is a PC game so no, a port, then? He also said that Crysis 2 will shove the novel Cry Engine 3 to its limits. If the PC edition was not a port would not be seeing low-resolution textures. Acutely, I only setup Crysis 2 and played 40 minutes of it. But that's sufficient for anybody to understand that the textures are less than half the resolution of what we saw in Warhead. "Works well" and "the console versions are not far from the PC graphic" are some of the comments I read in the reviews. The reason is because both the PC version looks like a console game. What you all thought about this?

[RyanInt]

The lack of DX11 out of the box is disgusting. If Yerli says is true, then the PC version have been used DX11 from the start, not only in patches at a later date. DX10 proved to be useless in most PC games, but DX11 is a real step forward. Not containing the newest features in a novel Crysis game is incredible. Come on, be truthful, how many of us gamers are graphic whores, expenses time and money to get the best probable images?

[AZUL]

If Crysis 2 really pushing the limits of their new engine then what a waste of time that was! We Crytek, CryEngine3 know what it is, is an engine optimized for low power consoles. Soil textures in Crysis are very good, the textures Warhead pushed even higher. Crysis 2 in PC is low mass resolution compared to Warhead. It's almost as if the ridiculous over the top flower is there to cover the cracks. I paid a lot of money building my team to play the best games they want. And unless the next patch that supposedly miraculously transforms the PC game we bought, basically, a game that seems larger than the original 5 years.

[RockOn]

Far Cry, published in 2004, the new CryEngine was unbelievable. Crysis, released 3.5 years later, CryEngine 2, the images were a big step up. Crysis 2, released 3.5 years later CryEngine 3, has gone multi-platform and not only lowered the quality of image, but the game itself. Another unique team ended a port to the PC. I know why Crytek (and others like them) do it, money. But that does not mean I have to be happy with it. After Far cry, Crysis Warhead and us PC gamers deserve a decent show. It is as though Crytek has not even attempted.

[Squibbit]

Cover system is broken; I can look around or over an object, but not necessarily the next. Not always given the option to press the 2 button mouse, well, I guess leaning has become a luxury in the world of Crysis, not one that can be used very often it seems. The lack of lean (and likely for that matter) almost makes me think I can also connect the controller 360 and be done with it. It is possible that console gamers thinking, 'oh, here we go, another Whinging PC games again', but seriously (and as serious as it can be with what is basically a game) that leave you too often , how often does the console market commitments incurred due to the PC?

[MacIntel]

I am very happy that prefer to focus on the game graphics. I guess it's fair to complain a little about the visual effects to a point, but I do not see how Crysis 2 because the graphics, is considered a console port. It just seems that this common hope that Crysis is supposed * to those who already spend a good amount of money in a bank of custom, and those who simply cannot afford. Unfortunately, the video-games do not work that way, I've seen Crysis 2 is running on a platform of a few and I honestly do not see why the OP is as disheveled and still beautiful game is also available for those who simply can 't pumping endless amounts of cash directly into the processor or graphics card.