
/thread

the PS3 and 360 cant handle even half of the shaders in Crysis .. and both consoles dont have directx 10 graphics.. also the PC reach 2560x1600 with AA while the ps3 still run at 720p without AA in some games.
man see how many ignorant people here.
Wow, and here I thought gameplay was what mattered!! You guys sound like some serious graphics whores.
If Crysis is ahead of what's possible on the HD consoles its not that far ahead. If the price for a little boost in graphic fidelity is constantly pumping thousands of dollars into a PC just so you can play current games, I'll just take the cheaper console that plays tons of games for 4 or 5 years. I mean, with all the money you save you can play so many more games!
Let a computer be a computer, use it for computer things, if you buy a super computer just to play a game you are wasting that computer and it's capabilities.
And this comes from someone who has been a PC gamer as well as console gamer my whole life. Eventually I gave it up, tired of upgrading constantly, the only thing that might pull me back is Diablo 3 if it is computer exclusive.
This of course is just an opinion, but I played Crysis about half way through and got really really tired of it. Don't get me wrong. I love shooters. It's unfortunate that while the graphics are amazing, the gameplay is only so so.
I think so many people here are so jaded by number's it's not even funny -_-; The point everyone has been making, is that even though you can run games at 1080p, or 8,000,000 p on your monitor's, the PQ isn't worlds ahead @_@ your letting big numbers affect how you think a game looks. In my opinion, the moment you start getting close to an HD picture (720p), it get's super hard, if not impossible to tell the difference between that number or higher unless your playing on a screen that's 40" plus >_>;;; Which most of you sadly aren't.
So if your crisis is running at 1080 at least, and our killzone 2 is running at 720, why do they look comparable o.O; Crysis is only a tad better, and the screenshots show it pretty well.
From 0 to KICKASS in .stupid seconds.
| ChronotriggerJM said: I think so many people here are so jaded by number's it's not even funny -_-; The point everyone has been making, is that even though you can run games at 1080p, or 8,000,000 p on your monitor's, the PQ isn't worlds ahead @_@ your letting big numbers affect how you think a game looks. In my opinion, the moment you start getting close to an HD picture (720p), it get's super hard, if not impossible to tell the difference between that number or higher unless your playing on a screen that's 40" plus >_>;;; Which most of you sadly aren't. So if your crisis is running at 1080 at least, and our killzone 2 is running at 720, why do they look comparable o.O; Crysis is only a tad better, and the screenshots show it pretty well. |
killzone 2 dont have directx 10 graphics also dont even have 1/4 of Crysis shaders .. see god of war 2 look better than some of the ps3 games but is the ps2 power like the ps3 one ? .. HELL NO.
LOL are we seriously jumping back on the whole Direct X 10 crap? xD Man I swear some people have no idea what Direct X 10 is... only what it's "capable" of. How can games like Gears of war 2, Killzone 2, and Uncharted 2 look so damn awesome while completely ignoring direct x 10 altogether. If it really takes that much effort to see the magical benefits of direct x 10, then is it all that magical? So we have a quarter of the shaders of crysis, damn that sucks... kinda? Our games don't look 75% worse >_>; So what's the benefit of the other 3/4'ths again?
That's the point I'm making, no matter what kind of numbers you throw out, the fact remains that the games just don't look as amazing as the data your throwing out does. Crysis only looks slightly better than the top tiered graphic titles on the PS3 and 360.
From 0 to KICKASS in .stupid seconds.
| ChronotriggerJM said: LOL are we seriously jumping back on the whole Direct X 10 crap? xD Man I swear some people have no idea what Direct X 10 is... only what it's "capable" of. How can games like Gears of war 2, Killzone 2, and Uncharted 2 look so damn awesome while completely ignoring direct x 10 altogether. If it really takes that much effort to see the magical benefits of direct x 10, then is it all that magical? So we have a quarter of the shaders of crysis, damn that sucks... kinda? Our games don't look 75% worse >_>; So what's the benefit of the other 3/4'ths again? That's the point I'm making, no matter what kind of numbers you throw out, the fact remains that the games just don't look as amazing as the data your throwing out does. Crysis only looks slightly better than the top tiered graphic titles on the PS3 and 360. |
Maybe in screens, to really understand you have to play it.
@sleep
I've played Crysis on a decent rig ^^ It looks fantastic :D But 4x better than even the first uncharted or gears of war is in no way a feasible statement. I think of it like this.
If we make up some BS sales figures real quick, at the start of the generation, the PS3 can be at 0 units, and the 360 with it's head start, can be at 4,000,000. Well the first month that goes by, the 360 is at 5,000,000 with the PS3 at 1,000,000. It's a 5 to one ratio. The 360 at this point has sold 5 times as much. However, when all is said and done, the 360 can be at 100,000,000 units, and the PS3 could be at 96,000,000. It's not exactly 4 times more, just 4 million more.
The numbers for crysis imply that it's using 4x the capability of any game out there, and just looking at them it's obviously not true. The game just doesn't look that much ahead. I wouldn't even say it's got double the graphical prowess of the console, and that's on an uber gaming pc. It's not a jump like PS2 -> PS3. In this case I view it more like PS2 -> Xbox.
From 0 to KICKASS in .stupid seconds.
What happened with Farcry 2 foir PS3 and the 360 it suppos
ed to atleast equal (emulate) crysis graphics on consoles.