selnor said:
osamanobama said:
selnor said:
osamanobama said:
selnor said:
osamanobama said:
jhuff394 said:

yeah thats unfortunate that nearly all xbox owners are doing that. but i dont think you need to own both consoles, just that you must have played/owned the other games for a substantial amount of time

people like Nsanity never even touched KZ, or Uncharted, or GOW. but then go out claiming crysis is the best, completely ignoring DF and LOT, and only looking to youtube videos and ign. i wish there was a way to limit it to people who own all of them.

This BS about only IGN. Ask even CGI. There is more reviewers claiming graphics king.

Do we need DF or LOT to tell us how games look with our own eyes?

Do DF take into consideration what an engine is doing totally in realtime?

I can list at leat 5 things in realtime that no other game is doing on consoles apart from Crysis 2. or how much bigger the scale of player interactive area is. In fact that last part isnt even close on any shooter on consoles. The play space thats rendered in realtime on Crysis 2 is a complete nother level compared to other console shooters. 3rd or First person. It's almost embarrassing comparing any game to it for that reason.

AI also doesnt just operate in 2d dimensions because of the play space to. They have to climb 3 or 4 stories up to flank, or traverse the huge distance of the play areas to gain tactical advantage. There is just so much more going on under the hood. It's so obvious on a technical note it hurts.

Take the closest 360 top game for example. Gears 2? Gears 2 is miles behind on a technical not least due to the play spaces not even being close to Crysis 2 size. Reach? Reach has without a doubt the next biggest play areas on conosles. But they arent Crysis 2 big. Crysis 2 is both big play areas not just length and width but hieght. Some of them are rediculously big.

Framerate issues? Yes it has some. But nowhere near unplayable. In fact Ive barely noticed it and I;ve just got to the central station. If it ever has dropped to the so called 15 - 20 FPS that DF has said. It's been for a split second like 1/100th because I know from my PC days what 15 fps looks like. And Crysis 2 has never chugged like that. ( 360 version ).

Well done Crytek. Youve blown our eyeballs.

i never said it was only ign, as i have admitted many times (man you and Nsanity arent to good a ready my posts) there are about 6 sites that say it is the best.

and there isnt anything significant that crysis is running real time that GOW, KZ's, and UC2 arent.

(on a side note, the helicopter crashing into the building was really amazing, unfortunately the fps dropped a ton when it did it.)

also the AI in crysis are idiots (i didnt really bother me, because i had fun at how comical it was, not joking, i didnt care to much) there were many times they would just run into wall, corners, run away. other time they literally didnt act like i was standing right in front of them. i would throw objects at them and they would just stand there doing nothing. sometimes they would do nothing, but over their radios, they would say were i was at (which was right in front of them).

sure they had a more than usual open shooter that looked on par as more Linear (still not as linear as most games) UC2, KZ's, and GOW, but they did it at the expense of performance, which LOT and DF, and I have gone into great depths about. games like Killzone look look better and realler than real life if they wanted to, but if it meant its 10fps, and pop in every time you sprint, and tons of screens tearing (not at all saying this is what crysis does) then does it really matter, would it be the console graphics king then? i think not

also DF said Crysis not only doesnt use real 3D, but its also inferior to motorstorm and KZ(which use real stereoscopy)

Who cares if something is real 3d or not. If the 3d looks better isnt that what matters?????

Also KZ3, UC2 and GOW3 all do not have full realtime lighting. They dont. Nor do they have full realtime shadows. Again realtime physics do not apply to every object in KZ3, UC2 or GOW3 either. Couple that with Crysis 2 at it's biggest ponts at least 2 to 3 times the size if not more in play space area than any of those games and any Console game pitted against Crysis 2 looks pretty pointless.

I would love to see Crytek make a game with levels as small as KZ3's or UC2's and see just how much the textures etc would be upped. It would be huge.

All in all, When you playthrough Crysis 2 and you come up over a cliff edge only to find that everything you see before you is actual game play space that you are seriously impressed.

I love the way the first achievement you get on Crysis 2 is named "can it run Crysis". Says everything any gamer needs to know.

The first console game to be fully realtime. No smoke and mirrors. Just like Crytek critised the other devs in the console business for so far this gen. Smoke and mirror tactics. Which will never allow them to create fully fledged big play areas like seen in Crysis 2. The bigger you go, the more obvious things like Global illumination etc are to see if it's there or not.

they also said the 3d is better on kz. did you not read my post, or even DF.

sure they dont have FULL real time lighting. but they dont need it either because in many aspects it looks better. they dont have odd, jaggy glithy shadows, and everthing has a shodow. you pass over a light source in any of those games, it casts a realistic shadow. you shoot a light, it goes out and part of the screen goes dark accordingly. (there were a lot of lights/lamps in crysis where no mater how much you shot it, the light would still shine) in UNcharted and GOW when nathan and kratos take steps their feet cast shadows even.

and every game uses smoke and mirrors to achieve great visuals that includes crysis. whos to say games like KZ and U2 couldnt produce the same visual having bigger environments.  crysis is far from open/world. KZ and U2 are more closed not because of technical limitations, but rather game play,, the direction the want to take the game. and they could definitely do it, if they sacraficed so much performance like crysis does (which i mentioned earlier). the game can be the most realistic in the world, but does it matter, or even have the best graphics, if its glitching like crazy, drops frame rate like crazy, and has pop in. (again not saying this is what crysis dos, though it does just to a lesser extent) the answer is no.

KZ's (especially 3), U2, GOW run perectly and have flawless visuals. thats why they are graphics kings

You keep going on about these glitches.

Yes theres glitches. But nowhere near the level you are portraying. Ive played nearly 8 hours of the 360 version campaign. Main noticeable glitches are enemies clipping when they die, and some pop in. Although the pop in isnt nearly as bad as DF portray. In fact theres so much going on most of the time you dont even notice it. Take Crysis 2's trees. And the shadows they cast. Every twig, leaf is completely shadowed. After the flood and you wake up. That section where theres lots of trees is beautiful. Walking under all of them and seeing all the shadows and lighting is perfect. And the river flowing down the middle. The water was near perfect.

Other engines would have to be changed alot to get anywhere near that. Let alone the size of that level.

fair enough, i will not be able to convince you. the game clock said it took me about 8 hr. 49min to beat, but im pretty sure it took longer with all my deaths and everything. so you should be close to beating it. but im just saying im sure if you owned a ps3 and KZ's, U@, and GOW, you may very well change you mind.

anyway this discussion is gay. you have your opinion, i have mine, and you at least back up your claims with real reasons which is why i have little problem with your opinion, its people like Nsanity that dont give any reasons, and just post youtube vids of a guy saying it is the best for his proof.