Behold the super inferior crysis 2 ps3 version!!!

AussieGecko

Currently Offline

10,604

2560 posts since 22/04/09

Recent Badges:

Pata 100 wall post comments made on gamrConnect.
Open For Business Earned 10 badges.
Hit And Run 15 comments posted on VGChartz news articles.
50 in One Add a total of 50 games to your collection.
Everything's Falling Into Place Add a total of 100 games to your collection.
Littlest Genocide 1,000 posts on the gamrConnect forums.

AussieGecko on 21 March 2011

we are getting 27 million different versions of this, lets wait till we play it first hand eh

Bet with Conegamer and Doobie_wop

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

darkknightkryta

Currently Offline

20,972

5739 posts since 22/07/09

Recent Badges:

16 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 16 years.
Escape Artist Managed to avoid being banned for 1 month.
6 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 6 years.
Watch Your Back! Received 10,000 profile views.
First Rung Of The Ladder Earned 10,000 gamrPoints
Genocide 5,000 posts on the gamrConnect forums.

Currently Playing:

Dragon's Crown (PSV)
Muramasa Rebirth (PSV)
Dragon Age II (PC)
The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky (PSP)

darkknightkryta on 21 March 2011

CGI-Quality said:

darkknightkryta said:

CGI-Quality said:

Don't jump the gun just yet guys! There's still the possiblity that the PS3 version is 1024x720. If that ends up true, it won't be the better looking of the two.

Why not? Better effects, even at a lower resolution, I'd take the better effects. Suppose that's the case, it can just be as ugly all around.

How can one side argue for a better "technical" experience if the experience is of a lower resolution than it's counterpart on the competing system?

Take GTA IV as an example. There were individual areas where the PS3 was ahead, but in the total package, it was considered the inferior version of the two because it had a lower resolution in addition to other drawbacks.

There's more to this than resolution. I'd argue in GTA 4's case they lowered the res cause anti-aliasing was disabled by the higher percision HDR implemented and they employed a screen filter to make up for the aliasing, and the screen filter needed the extra ram (That's my guess anyways). I'd rather take the lower resolution, which will probably be barely noticeable on my T.V. and have better lighting, and in some cases better textures (If those screens are the final build), than have the higher resolution with less effects. Another example; let's say for example Killzone 2 was multiplatform; the 360 version runs at a higher resolution, but the deferred renderer didn't make the port over and something else was implemented and all the Helghast lost their lit up eyes, would you rather have the higher res and lose the deferred renderer?

gurglesletch

Currently Offline

11,024

3106 posts since 26/09/09

Recent Badges:

9 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 9 years.
'Ello Princess! Awarded for signing up.
So You Came Back For More, Huh? Logged in a second time.
One Piece at a Time Add your first game to your collection.
13 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 13 years.
1st Birthday Has been a VGChartz member for over 1 year.

Currently Playing:

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune (PS3)
Age of Empires II: The Conquerors (PC)
Civilization III: Play the World (PC)
SimCity 3000 Unlimited (PC)

gurglesletch on 21 March 2011

CGI-Quality said:

darkknightkryta said:

CGI-Quality said:

Don't jump the gun just yet guys! There's still the possiblity that the PS3 version is 1024x720. If that ends up true, it won't be the better looking of the two.

Why not? Better effects, even at a lower resolution, I'd take the better effects. Suppose that's the case, it can just be as ugly all around.

How can one side argue for a better "technical" experience if the experience is of a lower resolution than it's counterpart on the competing system?

Take GTA IV as an example. There were individual areas where the PS3 was ahead, but in the total package, it was considered the inferior version of the two because it had a lower resolution in addition to other drawbacks.

If you play on a tiny tv resolution doesn't matter very much.

Get your Portable ID!

darkknightkryta

Currently Offline

20,972

5739 posts since 22/07/09

Recent Badges:

'Ello Princess! Awarded for signing up.
Trust Me, It'll Have Legs 100 replies made to user's most popular thread.
A Free Man Managed to avoid being banned for 2 years.
It's a Start Bank a Total of 2,000 VG$.
15 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 15 years.
8 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 8 years.

Currently Playing:

Dragon's Crown (PSV)
Muramasa Rebirth (PSV)
Dragon Age II (PC)
The Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky (PSP)

darkknightkryta on 21 March 2011

CGI-Quality said:

darkknightkryta said:

There's more to this than resolution. I'd argue in GTA 4's case they lowered the res cause anti-aliasing was disabled by the higher percision HDR implemented and they employed a screen filter to make up for the aliasing, and the screen filter needed the extra ram (That's my guess anyways). I'd rather take the lower resolution, which will probably be barely noticeable on my T.V. and have better lighting, and in some cases better textures (If those screens are the final build), than have the higher resolution with less effects. Another example; let's say for example Killzone 2 was multiplatform; the 360 version runs at a higher resolution, but the deferred renderer didn't make the port over and something else was implemented and all the Helghast lost their lit up eyes, would you rather have the higher res and lose the deferred renderer?

To me, there's not enough of a difference to constitute buying a version with a lower resolution. If the PS3 version absolutely destroyed the 360 one, it would make sense, but in this case, it doesn't.

Nevertheless, the debate is pointless without confirmation, so let's just leave it at that.

Indeed