Crysis 2: Consoles startlingly weak, PC very promising

[binary solo]

CGI-Quality said:

Squilliam said:

CGI-Quality said:

Squilliam said:

CGI-Quality said:

Chrizum said:

And we didn't know that? Only hardcore 360 and PS3 fanboys think their games look amazing. Gears of War 2? Uncharted 2? Don't look that impressive at all. Killzone 2 could be done on PCs 4 years ago.

Of course, to elitist PC fans, console games won't look "impressive at all". I say that because not all PC fans behave that way. But on the flipside, those console games took dedication, talent, and horsepower. One man's rags is another man's riches.

Not so fast! A lot of those elitist fans are able to appeciate talent, artistry and excellent production values, more so that anyone who has ever uttered the words 'Powah of teh Cell' with any hint of seriousness. They only appear to be elitist because they have to shoot down many of the latter comments which doesn't give them any chance to espouse the true form excellence has taken in many of the console games, especially PS3 exclusives.

Doesn't nullify my point.

A. obviously, a console isn't anywhere near the power of a PC... B. console fans don't need to be reminded of this fact all the time. I, myself, am a former PC-only fan and can appreciate a current PC fan's outlook. I don't, however, find it OK to claim that console games "aren't impressive" because the PC has games that look better. That's the time when a big, fat "SO FUCKIN' WHAT" is applied. In fact, it can be applied when PS3 fans throw their exclusives in the faces of Wii/360 fans as well.

A. Some people seem to forget that.

B. They do need to be reminded, all of the time. Almost all of the talk about console games seems to take a psudo technical angle when talking about visuals when what really needs to be praised is artistry and talent. Answer me this, who got more praise for Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2? Was it the PS3 or was it the teams whom made the game? I'll be surprised if you say the latter. It all depends on the context, if people use the wrong one then does it surprise you when they are corrected?

Doesn't matter who praised Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2, unless you have an inferiority complex. And if we get real technical, the industry itself hyped Uncharted 2's & Killzone 2's visuals as "the best on CONSOLES", right along with the 'fanboys' you seem so quick to call out. And saying: "PC games look better than console games" well no shit, who argued that they didn't? But in many graphics discussions, PC fans feel obligated to "trash the consoles", which can be down right annoying.

Regardless, no matter who's doing it, it remains an elitist way of thinking, which you seem to support.

This whole argument revolves around people saying "Wow! look at those AMAZING grafix!!1!!" in reference to a console game, and PC devotees swining in and saying "Those graphics are shit compared to PC". When EVERYONE, including the PC fan, knows very well that the first comment omitted the "for a console game" qualifier, but the person making the comment simply takes it as read that EVERYONE knows they are limiting the the context of their comment to the console graphics sphere. And the PC fan is merely being churlish by throwing out the whole PC gfx >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Console gfx thing.

I can count on one hand the number of times someone foolishly tried to favourably compare console graphcs to PC graphics, and every time that person was put in their proper place by everyone no matter what their gaming platform preferences.

A site like this is itself being churlish in doing this comparison. Though perhaps Crytek invited this sort of churlishness by suggesting they could extract similar visual performances between PC and console, without compromising on PC visual quality.

Besides Squilly-poo, who are you to question teh powah of teh C3ll?