By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ping_ii on 22 March 2011
Edit Thread
buglebum said:
osamanobama said:

unless ign is right and the ps3 version is that much worse, it doesnt even compare to killzone 3, not even close.

dont get me wrong it looks amazing but (especially the lighting) KZ just has so much stuff going on and still runs smooth and looks top notch throughout. even ignoring the slight framerate issues of crysis (which is easy, its not too bad) it doesnt compare to KZ3.

i wonder who this reviewer is and if he has some kind of agenda.

but anyway, going of lense of truth, the versions look basically the same (pros and cons to each).

and i will be waiting on digital foundries review.

i also hate how ign, has given xbox versions of games higher scores (when they perform better), but they dont do it to ps3 versions that are better. but like most of use here, i havent taken ign seriously for years now. they are idiots, about everything


IGN only rate the game better when there's a significant difference. Most multiplats look better on the Xbox it's only been a few instances where the score has actually been higher as a result.

 

Like I already said, they aren't biased just plain thick as shit. They said that ME2 was the definitive version on the PS3 - it looked worse overall on the PS3. There's been 1 or 2 more examples where they have said the PS3 version looks better when it wasn't even true.

 

Here they arew reporting the truth, the lens of truth screenshots aren't showing everything because it's not a moving image, I've played both full console versions and the xbox one is obviously better looking you can tell straight away in a matter of a couple of seconds.