By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nsanity on 25 March 2011
Edit Thread
thismeintiel said:
Doobie_wop said:

Still have to wait for my copy, I was gonna pick it up on 360, but I guess the PS3 version should be fine and it looks better on my shelf. 

I also wrote in another thread about how Crysis 2 could easily out do Killzone 3 in my final playthrough, but even if the game is amazing, it's not going to win strictly based on how it performs. Dropping to 15 FPS is pretty bad and is in no way a small thing, the texture pop in, screen tearing and the dumb AI that I noticed on the video I watched only seal the deal. The game may be more fun though, so we will see.

Crytek have done a better job than I thought they would, but the game reeks of PC port, which means it's going to be like Metro 2033 and look great, but everything else about it is going to fall a bit short. Codename Kingdoms is going to be a whole different story, it's going to be specifically optimized for the 360 and I'm sure they'll be able to iron out all those performance issues and still deliver great visuals.

Also, to Nsanity, you've obviously never played any of the PS3 games that people keep mentioning and I'd just like to point out that Killzone 3 isn't as closed off as you'd like to think and the AI in the game is very good. You bring up linearity so that your argument for Halo: Reach being significant in any way in terms of technical performance can hold water, but I played Reach and that game was just as linear, the difference was that it gave you a wide open space of rubble and flat textures, instead of a smaller amount of space that blows you away at every corner. Reach has non-linear gameplay, but the level design and progression is still extremely linear. Halo: Reach is not S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Far Cry 2 or Borderlands, it's a lot more like Bioshock or The Darkness. 

Edit: Both games are sub HD as well, DF made a mistake and Crytek verified it. How are none of the review sites listing these things as negatives? I remember Enslaved and Lords of Shadow catching so much flack for their performances, despite looking amazing, but then Crysis 2 comes along and performs worse and has a bunch of other issues and you have reviewers ignoring or glossing over them like they don't matter. The site I trust (Giant Bomb) mentioned the issues and reviewed it accordingly, which leads me to believe that reviewers believe visuals are more important than performance, they've been coerced into being lenient (the Crysis 2 ads all over a bunch of sites aren't helping) or the graphics hype just got to them. The game might also be so much fun that it overrides the issues.

This was fun.

This is why I don't trust many reviews.  It seems that the more a game is hyped, or if the reviewer fears outcry from fanboys, he/she will rate the game no lower than 9.  Which is sad, as I don't think there should be as many games getting 9's as there is today.  I mean we have games from Bethesda that are buggy as shit, but they get 9's or higher, which should mean the game is reaching perfection.  That's not trying to detract from these games fun level, but games should be reviewed on all apsects equally.  Not "oh the game is pretty fun, screw all the flaws, 9.5."  Though sometimes it seems they try and review something honestly every once in awhile to prove they don't bend to the wills of their readers, but that ends up sticking out like a sore thumb.  Like IGN's 8.5 for GT5. 

Of course, IGN does seem to have a bias against the PS3.  I wouldn't even be saying that if it weren't for them sometimes finding any little thing to rate the PS3 version of a game lower, somtimes even lower than 1 point even if the games are very similar in performance.  But then when a game truly doesn't stack up on the 360 (FF13 for example), the 360 version still ends up with the exact same score.

Its a conspiracy

http://ie.ps3.ign.com/articles/114/1144303p1.html

http://ie.ps3.ign.com/articles/881/881472p5.html