TheRealMafoo said:
Back to my argument. RtCW required a 16 meg video card, and 128 meg of ram, and a 400mgz PII to run at its minimum, that's not full quality. 5 years later, a 32 meg (total) system with a slower CPU has games that blow RtCW at it’s highest quality out of the water. Hardware moves way too fast for software developers to get the full potential out of anything. It's a waste of time in the PC world. By the time you tweak the shit out of your code, you could just put quicker developed code on new hardware, and outperform it. In the console world where everything stays the same for 5-10 years, it’s a totally different story. A game that looks better then Crysis will be on the PS3. I have no doubt about that. |
I'm sorry but you are still confused, you keep comparing HD resolution from PC games to SD from the PS2 games, maybe the PS2 game looks better to you, but you need to understand what does it needed to make it look good, lower poly count, low res textures, and SD resolution...
The same will happend with the consoles, Call of duty4 doesn't run @ 720, Killzone 2 will be @ 720 and 30 fps, and it doesn't feature a huge a detailed enviroment like Crysis...
We can bet if you want, but there is not going to be any game for the PS3 or the 360 that looks better than Crisys featuring huge enviroments with tons of objects, huge render distance and running a 720 @ 30fps...








