By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ricoswuave38 on 22 March 2011
Edit Thread
Hyruken said:
CGI-Quality said:
Hyruken said:

"But it is a world whose intricacy and realism will cause you to stop and stare long after the first drop of the jaw. The sway of tree-tops; the spray of a decorative fountain; the flames erupting from a burst gas pipe: incidental details that grab your attention for their quiet, shocking realism. Who knows how Crytek managed to squeeze Cry Engine 3 onto the consoles while maintaining such extraordinary level of detail? But this world sits next to Uncharted 2's as the most detailed and well-expressed yet seen on our TVs"

 

That was from Eurogamer from the 360 version.

So on contrary to what CGI is saying there does appear to be quite a few places now saying the 360 version holds up against the top gfx games on PS3 i.e UC2 and KZ3.

At the end of the day those things are just opinions though. Who cares if one has better gfx then another? It seems so many of these reviews are talking about the gfx rather then the gameplay and for me that isn't a good thing.

How's it contrary to what I'm saying? You obviously haven't been reading what I've been saying.


From what i have seen your basically trying to down play what some reviewers are saying. I.e Crysis 2 has better/on par gfx with KZ3/UC2 etc..

Your argument is to imply that because some of these reviewers don't mention it then it can't be true. If it was as good as some say then why isn't it mentioned in every review right?

The point is it does not need to be mentioned in every review. By not having it in them is not confirmation that it isn't as good as those games gfx wise.

Since i posted that you have posted quotes from other reviews proving my point as what you quote is from the "it isn't as good as KZ3 etc" opinion.

But the problem with those quotes are who are those guys? While it's nice to view their opinions in terms of credibility i would take someone like Eurogamer (Digital Foundary) word over some guy from bitgamer who also said i quote "Most of what wounds the game on the graphical front, however, is a simple lack of AA combined with a lot of low-res textures. Even at its absolute worst it would be unfair and melodramatic to claim that Crysis 2 looks bad, but it’s also impossible to hold it up as a pinnacle. It looks OK"..... Low res textures and looks ok....i mean come on....  then he says " it ends up looking merely middle of the road on consoles"...... so it is just average graphics now, ones that majority of console games have? I mean seriously?

Point being half the guys talking about the gfx from these random sites don't even know what they are talking about.

People like Eurogamer will do huge tests on this game and they have already to a degree. I take that opinion more seriously then some random guy saying it is "middle of the road" graphics on consoles...

I agree with you, just because it isn't mentioned in every review doesn't mean it's the best or worst of the top looking games.  Some reviewers dont even care really.  And keep in mind, it is also a multiplat game.  I believe if it was an exlusive, we would see more "graphics king" talk.  I just want to know if this is a rent or a must buy game.