Aldro said:
perpride said:
selnor said:
perpride said:
blazinhead89 said:
selnor said:
blazinhead89 said:
It doesn't matter how powerful a system is , The GC was technically more powerful than PS2, but PS2 had games that looked better. Why? Because PS2 power was optimised more. So KZ2 can look better than Cryengine 3, as KZ2 optimises the strengths of the PS3 better (Atm anyway) . Cryengine 3 does things better than KZ2 Engine like Foliage, Water etc, But KZ2 engine does other things such as lighting, explosions, Animations etc better. Until we see KZ2 Engine do a forest area, we can only speculate what Engine is better in that type of environment. |
I cannot believe that people genuinely believe themselves when they say this.
CRYEnigine 2 beats KZ2 on every single front. Least because KZ2 cannot physically do DX10 lighting, effects, etc etc. CRYEngine 3 has further improved lighting, effects etc etc. I have never seen any explosion from a grenade or rocket launcher look anywhere near as the one in CRYEnigine 3. Anyone viewing CRYEnigine 3 physically running the demo on the console (at this point only 360 playable demo) says it's gobsmacking. And from what we have been alowed to see, it's stunning. Not the craptastic trailer, but the full fledged playable CRYEngine 3 demo. It wins so easily it's not funny.
Remember the bridge explosion in KZ2? The fully playable CRYEngine 3 demo shows us how an explosion on a bridge should be done. There is no contest it's funny. CRYEngine 3 is quite a way ahead. And I cant wait to see decent devs give us games on this engine. Hell yes.
|
Well, I'm gonna have to disagree. Both Technically and From an art direction point of view, the KZ2 Engine is superior (Atm imo ) . Of course I would love to be able to do a Comparison with Forest environment. KZ2 Engine Beats the Cryengine in Urban areas atm. I would also speculate that KZ2 Engine could give the Cryengine a run for it's money in a Forest environment. |
Agreed. I've seen Crysis running on $1000 computer and not look as good as KZ2. Screenshots say differently, but I have yet to see a computer running the game looking that good. I don't know whether its the ussual exhagarration that they do with screenshots or whether there just isn't a GPU that Crysis will laugh at.
|
????
I seriously dont knowhat to say. I think PS3 is a great machine, but comments like this? I will just leave the thread. It makes me churn to hear fanboy comments like this. There is no point even discussing it. I'm truly lost for words. ( cue PC gamers the world over ROFL)
|
This has absolutley nothing to do with the PlayStation 3 or fanboyhsm. It's a comparison of two first person shooters, one of which has nothing to do with the console war.
|
You read my mind ^.
|
I never mentioned PS3 vs another console, why you put words in my mouth. I was referring to PS3 fanboy comments. You want to believe so much that KZ2 is that amazing it beats Crysis. Crazy fanboys dont need another console to make fanboy comments. Why cant some people just accept that KZ2 looks awesome and leave it at that. It's when people start touting it does x, y and z better than a game which is photorealistic that it turns absolutely stupid. Crytek have done us all a favour and showed us there is plenty more to come from the PS3. That was the original point I was making.
The fact that CRYEngine 3 looks so bloody good is EXCELLENT for PS3 owners. It means there is better to come. But people threw in the whole KZ2 looks better statement, and you know why? Because it's a third party engine. Meaning other consoles and PC will have this awesome graphics to. And fanboys cant stand that so they say KZ2 looks better. If CRYEngine 3 looked exactly as it does but was a Sony inhouse exclusive engine comments would be so different from fanboys.
The majority of reasonable people can see how could CRYEngine 3 is. People seriously need to get out more.
