Doobie_wop said:
Still have to wait for my copy, I was gonna pick it up on 360, but I guess the PS3 version should be fine and it looks better on my shelf.
I also wrote in another thread about how Crysis 2 could easily out do Killzone 3 in my final playthrough, but even if the game is amazing, it's not going to win strictly based on how it performs. Dropping to 15 FPS is pretty bad and is in no way a small thing, the texture pop in, screen tearing and the dumb AI that I noticed on the video I watched only seal the deal. The game may be more fun though, so we will see.
Crytek have done a better job than I thought they would, but the game reeks of PC port, which means it's going to be like Metro 2033 and look great, but everything else about it is going to fall a bit short. Codename Kingdoms is going to be a whole different story, it's going to be specifically optimized for the 360 and I'm sure they'll be able to iron out all those performance issues and still deliver great visuals.
Also, to Nsanity, you've obviously never played any of the PS3 games that people keep mentioning and I'd just like to point out that Killzone 3 isn't as closed off as you'd like to think and the AI in the game is very good. You bring up linearity so that your argument for Halo: Reach being significant in any way in terms of technical performance can hold water, but I played Reach and that game was just as linear, the difference was that it gave you a wide open space of rubble and flat textures, instead of a smaller amount of space that blows you away at every corner. Reach has non-linear gameplay, but the level design and progression is still extremely linear. Halo: Reach is not S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Far Cry 2 or Borderlands, it's a lot more like Bioshock or The Darkness.
Edit: Both games are sub HD as well, DF made a mistake and Crytek verified it. How are none of the review sites listing these things as negatives? I remember Enslaved and Lords of Shadow catching so much flack for their performances, despite looking amazing, but then Crysis 2 comes along and performs worse and has a bunch of other issues and you have reviewers ignoring or glossing over them like they don't matter. The site I trust (Giant Bomb) mentioned the issues and reviewed it accordingly, which leads me to believe that reviewers believe visuals are more important than performance, they've been coerced into being lenient (the Crysis 2 ads all over a bunch of sites aren't helping) or the graphics hype just got to them. The game might also be so much fun that it overrides the issues.
This was fun.
|
