CGI-Quality said:
I'm far from afraid to say what I think (I thought by now, I would have proven that I'm only judging footage though, so after an extensive good week of playtime, I'll come back and make a much better judgment of the game. |
). Gears of War 2 is still the most impressive game I've seen on the 360 (mind you, like much of the rest of the site, I've yet to play the full game of Crysis 2). Crysis 2 (again, form what I've seen) has some areas that are truly impressive (textures, draw distance, and lighting come to mind). But it lacks what other titles in the genre have (huge set pieces, amount of things taking place on screen, in your face character models).
I don't know why you think huge set pieces are amazing, they are not. If anything, the size is arbitrary and the textures needed don't have to be as high detail as closer models. Serious Sam 1 had huge bosses too and threw lots of things at you at the same time.
From looking at those videos, Killzone reminds me of Quake 4 with some postprocessing effects. Uncharted 2 had some good scenes, but aside from a decent lighting model it looks pretty standard. Crysis 2 looked pretty standard except for that 3rd video where it was showing lighting effects underwater, that was classic Crysis and it was impressive to see running on consoles.
Overall, all of those engines looked about the same in terms of texture detail as expected since both consoles have roughly the same amount of video RAM. All the games had compromises, but usually in places where the player won't notice until they are looking for those things. It looks like all the console games still target a rather unimpressive 30FPS. I'll take 60 FPS over visuals anyday.
The graphical differences between the 360 and PS3 isn't anything to write home about, and I think most of the public agrees.
