By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - It's official: The Graphics King is now crowned

 

It's official: The Graphics King is now crowned

duh 211 67.20%
 
no, its a lie 103 32.80%
 
Total:314
mantlepiecek said:

Some people are hurt, its showing.

Oh and IGN can lick my boots, weren't they saying ME 2 was better on the PS3? LOL, we all saw how that turned out.

IGN is a great joke, and lens of truth obviously has the edge in terms of credibility.


LOL exactly! :D I find this whole situation rather amusing



In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!

"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"

For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!

Around the Network
CGI-Quality said:
mendozahotness said:
CGI-Quality said:

So we shouldn't trust Digital Foundry either (the same guys you said would have the final word)? Their analysis practically mirrors this one.

they have the final word on comparisons, especially given lensoffails lies.  which they did and I stand by this RE: Crysis 2 on consoles "On balance, 360 has the edge in terms of visuals and general performance" which was to be expected as usual

if they made a "comparison" like lens of fail, or said killzone 3  looked better then crysis 2 then that would mirror lens of fail, all they said was killzone 3 looked better then killzone 2, but they also said that about uncharted 1

Call LoT whatever you want, I doubt you'd be saying that if Crysis 2 was the one on top. Again, seeing as you are very much like a permabanned poster, I have no further need of debating with you. Bottomline, Lens of Truth/Digital Foundry made their points.

oooh snap some logicalhotnezz right there CGI! :P



In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!

"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"

For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!

CGI-Quality said:

Call LoT whatever you want, I doubt you'd be saying that if Crysis 2 was the one on top. Again, seeing as you are very much like a permabanned poster, I have no further need of debating with you. Bottomline, Lens of Truth/Digital Foundry made their points.

no, lensoffail is fail all the time and completely redundant given the existence of DF, we don't need another comparison site which only does inferior comparisons

and lensoffail made their points, it just makes me lol that of the dozens of reviews proclaiming crysis 2 the graphics king, some particular people find a sliver of hope in a blog that falsifies evidence.



You missed an option. LOT is not x and y is better. It's tests a few things. None of which actually portrays what game is more impressive technically or aesthetically.

Example. At no time do they reffer to what lighting system each game has. How large the environments are. How many more polygons are being rendered ect ect.

Crysis 2 is the first attempt at having a PC type game environment on console. In other words non streamlined, corridorr shooters.

Framerates and other simpleton tests that these guys perform maen nothing other thean some end user tests.

You will call this out as people being sore losers.

Reality is, no tests were done for how much was realtime rendered. Or the fact that KZ3 does not have to compute Global illumination etc.

Crysis 2 when it stretches it's legs, no console game comes close. I agree that there are moments in Crysis 2 were it looks just good not wow. But the engine is the same throughout. It's designed to be able to handle the huge moments it has whilst still ingame. Not going to some cutscene or having a 10 ft wide corridor as a level ( Exaggerration ).



CGI-Quality said:

As far as FPS goes, this was pretty much the case since release week. Not only have more sites/reviewers called this game the best looking FPS out there, but the best looking console game period as well (a bit more than Uncharted 2 and significantly more than God of War III).

Crysis 2 makes a great case for multiplatform devs and the 360 as a whole, but it's graphical inconsistencies, performance, and loading are what hurt the overall experience. Killzone 3 is much more polished experience throughout and that's what you expect from something pegged as "the best on consoles" or "the best out there".

The two top tech analyzing sites have now said that Killzone 3 still trumps Crysis 2 (even though both agree with me that Crysis 2's one area of advantage is HDR lighting). Although they are opinions, some said that would make a strong case.

However, good luck with this thread!

spot on

i love both games but with my hands on time with both KZ3 keeps the crown.



Around the Network

*inbeforelensoftruthdon'tcount*



goforgold said:

*inbeforelensoftruthdon'tcount*


sooooooooooooooooo late



In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!

"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"

For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!

M.U.G.E.N said:
goforgold said:

*inbeforelensoftruthdon'tcount*


sooooooooooooooooo late

so ver very late :/



selnor said:

Crysis 2 when it stretches it's legs, no console game comes close.

this is true, the irony is, that while all the various reviews that declared Crysis 2 the console and PC graphics king, we know they compared it to Uncharted 2, KZ3, gow3 and GoW2 and it won

lensoffail is the only ones to the contrary, and man the majority is always right.

selnor said:

You missed an option. LOT is not x and y is better. It's tests a few things. None of which actually portrays what game is more impressive technically or aesthetically.

yep, im pretty sure no-one disputes kz3 runs in a higher resolution and at a higher framerate, because it has worse graphics, less effects and far less going on just like the HD remakes on PS3 run at a higher resolution and at 60fps means they look better then Uncharted 3 at its 720p 30fps squalor

 



selnor said:

You missed an option. LOT is not x and y is better. It's tests a few things. None of which actually portrays what game is more impressive technically or aesthetically.

Example. At no time do they reffer to what lighting system each game has. How large the environments are. How many more polygons are being rendered ect ect.

Crysis 2 is the first attempt at having a PC type game environment on console. In other words non streamlined, corridorr shooters.

Framerates and other simpleton tests that these guys perform maen nothing other thean some end user tests.

You will call this out as people being sore losers.

Reality is, no tests were done for how much was realtime rendered. Or the fact that KZ3 does not have to compute Global illumination etc. Cryengine 3 does that........Crysis 2 however does not.

Crysis 2 when it stretches it's legs, no console game comes close. I agree that there are moments in Crysis 2 were it looks just good not wow. But the engine is the same throughout. It's designed to be able to handle the huge moments it has whilst still ingame. Not going to some cutscene or having a 10 ft wide corridor as a level ( Exaggerration ).

I've said this before you REALLY have to play more games dude

and I see your problem,

you saw this and think Crysis 2 actally does that lolz, so dude but 90% of that isn't in Crysis 2. especially the console versions

http://vghq.net/2011/04/01/crysis-2-360-version-missing-self-shadows-from-light-sources-proof/

http://vghq.net/2011/03/28/crysis-2-textures-are-12-size-of-crysis-1-proof/

walk through a puddle and watch how NOTHING happens.

the game is running in sub HD and can barely hit 30 fps

stand in a room in Crysis 2 and watch how this does NOT happen

so now you know: what engine can do =/= what it actually does