Homeroids said:
Spagoodle said:
Homeroids said:
Spagoodle said:
Homeroids said:
Interesting. I got this email from my mate just yesterday. Did IGN base their review on the poor PS3 demo. Seems other sites are not agreeing with IGN. I guess Lens of Truth is not related to frame rate? Maybe....
Seems like in the retail version of Crysis 2, the PS3 has better graphics than the 360.
Odd considering the PS3 demo of Crysis 2 was far worse than the 360 and even at a lower res. Wonder why they released such a poor demo on the PS3?
|
One more time. Click the link below for a detailed description of how the game was reviewed.
http://www.ign.com/blogs/arthur-ign/2011/03/22/how-i-reviewed-crysis-2
No reputable site would ever review a games performance off a demo. If you disagree with the review and can support your opinion that's totally fair. Just don't discredit the review/reviewer by flat out making shit up or supposing the absurd.
|
Maybe you need to look at this from how he reviewed and it kind of shows that not all things are equal. EA were not setup properly in that there was an obvious over representation for the 360 version. So how do we even know if the review version is the final build at all? From your link on "how" it was reviewed.
quote, "At this event, EA had around 16 stations set up with Crysis 2 for Xbox 360. In another room, there was one PS3 build available, and a pair of PCs brought by Nvidia to show off the game on their hardware."
He goes onto say he finally played the retail version a day later or so but why would EA put a non-retail version (1 only) on the floor in the first place. Something don't add up. That's all I am saying
|
I never said all things were equal, I'm just a fan of facts. In your original post you suggested that perhaps he reviewed the ps3 version off the demo, which other people in this thread have also suggested or declared. The link I provided puts that bullshit to rest.
I don't have a horse in this race. If you disagree with the review or the method in which it was done so be it. I just have a problem with people making shit up or supposing far fetched claims, without any proof, just to further their own argument.
On the topic of the review I have a couple point. Many reviewers were at the event, and so far as I'm aware only IGN has been transparent enough to publish details. Whatever you think of IGN you have to at least respect that.
Secondly you go on to say "something don't add up" I hope you aren't implying that Arthur Gies is lying about the details of the review event. Their were many people at the event outside of IGN, therefore if he were lying it would be easily exposed and refuted. Also just in general can we please stop accusing reviewers of being liars or taking bribes. Call the guy a hack, shit all over the content of his review, but you have to at least assume its a genuine opinion unless you have something to back it up, and by something I'm talking about proof and not an overwhelming hatred for the publisher/reviewer.
|
See my bold above. I am not implying anything. Pragmatically, all I am saying is that Mr Gies is going against the flow. That does not add up. 2 schools of thought here. Gies is the oracle and he is not afraid to speak his mind. Or, Gies appears to have an opinion that is contradicting a lot of others. In fact, his opinion is strongly disagreeing with Crytek's recent statements.
If Gies was not IGN, but instead, representing some backwater and obscure web site that no one gave a rats about, we would not be having this discussion.
|
I appreciate the clarification.
I don't have answers for those fair questions if everything you say is indeed factual, and I have no reason to assume that it isn't btw. The only points I have been trying to make are In relation to how people disagree with reviews.
If you really want those questions answer head over to that blog post again and address them directly to the reviewer. He is answering any questions regarding his review as long as they are civil.
