By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
BMaker11 on 11 November 2014
Edit Thread
JazzB1987 said:
Justagamer said:


Well, he specifically said crysis 2...  crysis 1 was created exclusively on pc originally, then later ported to the 360. Crysis 2 was developed with consoles, so it was held back by them. Otherwise, how do you explain that crysis 2 looks worse than part 1 on pc? And as for the splinter cell video, well, that just shows that, damn, the original xbox was a beast of its time. It really did blow the doors off the ps2 in terms of power.


Thank you at least one person can read.

And even Splinter Cell was held back by the PS2 version. If you make the game for PS2 and then do a seperate version for XBOX the games would look even more diferent. The end result we got was PS2 version with added stuff and different character models. But the core of the XBOX version is still held back by the PS2 since it is in its core still the same game that was coded with PS2 in mind. (world geometry, hovercraft/ship etc etc)

First off, it wasn't a matter of not reading. I specifically searched "Crysis 2 comparison" and that video popped up. But I already did you one better by showing Crysis 3, which blows the console version out the water on PC.

And, actually, Splinter Cell has always been a more Xbox centric franchise, with Xbox being the lead platform and Xbox being the best version for pretty much every title. But they're all held back because they're the "same game"? What....were they supposed to be different games between the two consoles' respective versions? Are you seriously saying the flat out better graphics, lighting, textures, etc is still "held back"....because the game came out on PS2 as well? Or do you believe that lead platforms are the recipients of ports? You got the PS2 version with extra stuff....even though the Xbox version was actually coded with the PC in mind (Ubi Montreal dev'd it, then ported Xbox --> PC, whereas Ubi Shanghai did the PS2/GCN versions)? Ok.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about (or are just making stuff up), so I'm done here. Bringing up geometry...even though it still looks miles better on the PC. You can't discredit objective proof because it doesn't fit your agenda. It's only natural to get more out of old consoles so it's nothing to celebrate? So showing the PC version blowing out the console version doesn't mean anything? That just boils down to "oh no, don't talk about Crysis 3. That debunks my argument". Yea, I'm out. Because you're obviously missing the point of this discussion that there was no parity for Xbox vs PS2 or PS3/360 vs PC. PC looked better than PS3/360 games. Xbox games looked better than PS2 games. But this gen devs are "aiming for parity". People keep saying "nobody complained in the PS2 era when PS2 held back games"....well, at least the Xbox, GCN, and PC versions were still better and rightfully so. We aren't getting the same treatment this gen, in terms of the goals devs are having