By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - IGN Crysis 2 graphics 9.5 for x360 & 8.5 for ps3 !!!

hunter_alien on 22 March 2011

Graphics king here and there, who cares? We all know Uncahrted 3 is comming out this year



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!

Around the Network
yo_john117 on 22 March 2011
ImJustBayuum said:
yo_john117 said:
BenVTrigger said:

to be fair pretty much all publications are saying the 360 version looks better.

And after playing Crysis on 360 today there's no more debate on whether the 360 can handle PS3 exclusive level graphics.  Crysis easily looks as good or better than Killzone, Uncharted, or God of War.  And I wasn't even that impressed or excited with video I had seen but after playing it its freaking gorgeous.

You know its about time developers started getting their gear in ass and getting PS3 like graphics onto the 360...We've been waiting too damn long!

"ps3 like graphics"

how far apart were ps3 graphics to xbox 260 graphics before crysis 2....marginal at best

Sorry I should have clarified GOW3, Killzone, and UC2 like graphics. I would say the differences were more then just marginal. Those games are probably a nice step up from what the 360 had out...but mind you its not as big as many Playstation fans make it out to be.



SpartenOmega117 on 22 March 2011

im thinking about buying this game? Can anyone with first hand impression give me advice? Also is crysis 2 for xbox 360 really the new graphics king? Judging from the multiplayer beta it didnt look that great but m not sure about final version yet.



buglebum on 22 March 2011
osamanobama said:

unless ign is right and the ps3 version is that much worse, it doesnt even compare to killzone 3, not even close.

dont get me wrong it looks amazing but (especially the lighting) KZ just has so much stuff going on and still runs smooth and looks top notch throughout. even ignoring the slight framerate issues of crysis (which is easy, its not too bad) it doesnt compare to KZ3.

i wonder who this reviewer is and if he has some kind of agenda.

but anyway, going of lense of truth, the versions look basically the same (pros and cons to each).

and i will be waiting on digital foundries review.

i also hate how ign, has given xbox versions of games higher scores (when they perform better), but they dont do it to ps3 versions that are better. but like most of use here, i havent taken ign seriously for years now. they are idiots, about everything


IGN only rate the game better when there's a significant difference. Most multiplats look better on the Xbox it's only been a few instances where the score has actually been higher as a result.

 

Like I already said, they aren't biased just plain thick as shit. They said that ME2 was the definitive version on the PS3 - it looked worse overall on the PS3. There's been 1 or 2 more examples where they have said the PS3 version looks better when it wasn't even true.

 

Here they arew reporting the truth, the lens of truth screenshots aren't showing everything because it's not a moving image, I've played both full console versions and the xbox one is obviously better looking you can tell straight away in a matter of a couple of seconds.



Ping_ii on 22 March 2011

any other review besisdes IGN complaining about ps3 version??? no?



Around the Network
buglebum on 22 March 2011
SpartenOmega117 said:

im thinking about buying this game? Can anyone with first hand impression give me advice? Also is crysis 2 for xbox 360 really the new graphics king? Judging from the multiplayer beta it didnt look that great but m not sure about final version yet.


Nope, KZ2 and 3 look better, I've only played KZ2 and 3 for a couple of hours each but they look better and run better. Crysis 2 is much better than the first which was pretty awful really but still nothing special. I didn't think KZ2 or 3 were any good either though. The controls in Crysis 2 feel quite good, you feel like your really in control if that makes sense and not just controlling some tool.

 

From the opening intro you will think that something better than KZ 2 and 3 has arrived after that you'll be very dissapointed as the graphics take a real dive shortly after the intro.



Ping_ii on 22 March 2011
buglebum said:
osamanobama said:

unless ign is right and the ps3 version is that much worse, it doesnt even compare to killzone 3, not even close.

dont get me wrong it looks amazing but (especially the lighting) KZ just has so much stuff going on and still runs smooth and looks top notch throughout. even ignoring the slight framerate issues of crysis (which is easy, its not too bad) it doesnt compare to KZ3.

i wonder who this reviewer is and if he has some kind of agenda.

but anyway, going of lense of truth, the versions look basically the same (pros and cons to each).

and i will be waiting on digital foundries review.

i also hate how ign, has given xbox versions of games higher scores (when they perform better), but they dont do it to ps3 versions that are better. but like most of use here, i havent taken ign seriously for years now. they are idiots, about everything


IGN only rate the game better when there's a significant difference. Most multiplats look better on the Xbox it's only been a few instances where the score has actually been higher as a result.

 

Like I already said, they aren't biased just plain thick as shit. They said that ME2 was the definitive version on the PS3 - it looked worse overall on the PS3. There's been 1 or 2 more examples where they have said the PS3 version looks better when it wasn't even true.

 

Here they arew reporting the truth, the lens of truth screenshots aren't showing everything because it's not a moving image, I've played both full console versions and the xbox one is obviously better looking you can tell straight away in a matter of a couple of seconds.





buglebum on 22 March 2011
Ping_ii said:

any other review besisdes IGN complaining about ps3 version??? no?


complaining? WTF

Only complaining that is going on are posts like yours :)

 

IGN are REVIEWERS, it's their job to review games.



Ping_ii on 22 March 2011
buglebum said:
Ping_ii said:

any other review besisdes IGN complaining about ps3 version??? no?


complaining? WTF

Only complaining that is going on are posts like yours :)

 

IGN are REVIEWERS, it's their job to review games.


complaining as in rambling about how ps3 version is teh inferior, so far i've only seen IGN....



buglebum on 22 March 2011
Flame said:

I honestly cant see whats the point  of decreasing the graphics score if it didn't decrease the overall score compared to the 360 review. Theyre both sitting at 90. Both FFXIII versions also sit at 89 from IGN even though the 360 review got a lower graphics score.


Because the overall score is not an average as they clearly state. The score is for you to decide if the game is worth buying.

Did you think it was just there to add another critic review the metacritic average?

Let's for a minute suppose that the graphics score did lower the overall score for the PS3 version...Hmmm I wonder if there would be about a million threads on vgchartz moaning about that too....."graphics don't affect gameplay blah blah blah".