http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244/MaddMoose/crysis.jpg"..." /> http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244/MaddMoose/crysis.jpg"..." /> http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244/MaddMoose/crysis.jpg"..." /> http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244/MaddMoose/crysis.jpg"..." />
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - How Killzone 2 pwns Crysis and why I'm done with PC Gaming

slowmo said:
Steroid said:
Masakari said:

Long time lurker, when i saw this thread i finally registered.

I work in the industry, and i really think these types of threads are pointless. A lot of you guys were talking about the prices and how much an equivalent PC rig costs, have you stopped to wonder how much Killzone 2 cost and how much Crysis cost to make? The latest KZ2 rumoured figures had put it at 42m euros in budget, although this months 3D World magazine has an article on it and states it cost around 32m euros. Crysis cost half of that, if even that much.

Guerrilla also worked with several other outfits on this game, including Massive Black, Liquid Development, Sony's Tech R&D division, and consulted with other Sony affiliated devs.

I was working in Amsterdam when KZ2 went gold, and the Guerrilla guys went to pubs in Leidseplein to celebrate, and i felt happy for them that they finally completed it.

But there's this bad mentality in gaming to compare some games with others just looking at whats in the screen. I also think people go crazy for KZ2's graphics, but what they really like is the art direction, thats what makes it visually different. Because if we're looking at "best graphics", several other games are equal to, or beat it, like the aforementioned Crysis. Gears 2 has better textures and models than KZ2, Far Cry 2 has great graphics, Resident Evil 5 as well.

As it is, i think KZ2 is a pretty standard shooter, its fun, but nothing out of the ordinary save for the visual direction. It doesnt do anything new, but what it does it does well. However, as i also read somewhere (i think in Edge), if it had arrived 2 years prior, it would have made an insane impact. Now, after CoD4, after Crysis, after Gears 2, all huge action blowouts, KZ2 just feels well done, but everything in it ive seen or experienced before.

I felt kinda the same with Crysis as well - i played it before, it was called Far Cry except now it had powerups lol

Edge has been exposed for accepting bribes from developers to give games higher and lower scores. It makes me a bit sick when I see their reviews on metacritic; their sole review dragging the score of a game down horribly. Secondly Gears 2 was never more impressive then Metal Gears Solid 4 or Uncharted. It is not more impresive then killzone 2 in anyway. Also you mentioned that Killzone 2 had a higher budget. That was one of the points I was trying to make.

 

It's customary if you're going to commit liable that you place links as evidence, I've not read about it before so I'd be interested to see the articles.

 

 

 On their wikipedia page.



Around the Network

Congratulations. I would have turned my back on pc gaming completely if it wasnt for strategy games (and maybe valve). Crytek are just really bad devs putting out such a game. In warhead at one some you're running at 60 fps and then you get onto a moving train and hardly get 20 fps.



without fail every time there is a majour release, there are at least 50 threads that are utterly pointless relating to the game



I can't see it on there anymore Steroid



Again? Crysis has the best graphics; check. Crysis is shit; check. There, done.
To the OP's cred; Crysis looks nothing like the promoshots on any rig I've seen it played on and when it gets close it stutters almost to a complete halt ("but that's how amazing Crytek are, a future proof game!" - no, they are bad at optimization and aimed the game at PC's that didn't exist at the time and still mostly don't, what's the point?).
No games look like their promoshots (use Mass Effect, Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Resistance 2 as examples as well, huge difference).



Around the Network

yeah i was done with PC gaming in the late 90's wen the ps1 came out i just could take upgrading and installing and just sitting close to a PC monitor to play

The PC does still have some of the best sim games to date that still arent on consoles once those games come to the consoles then console gaming will be unmatched



                                                             

                                                                      Play Me

4 9800GX2's? at 20fps? That boy has got some spyware!

My Pentium D and 7900GS could do that. You take any console game available for PC and the PC version will look superior, and no you dont need a really expensive computer to do it either. I've had my rig since 2004, and upgraded the video card ONCE, and can still play every game that comes out at settings better than consoles. My computer can do lots of other stuff to boot!

However, consoles are still a good buy, and the gaurantee that you will never have to upgrade parts is pretty nice. In the case of the PS3 its a very good value for its HD media abilities. But alas, PC gaming will also be better looking that consoles, its a simple fact. Just because Crysis looks like shit on your craptastic $199 rig doesnt mean it looks that way on everyone elses.

Edit: Come to think of it, you could call PC gamers the Elite Gamers. You have to be willing to put some down to join, but in the end, it's all worth it.



Crysis has around 3 hours of game play in it and requires a 12GB install on PC. Most of these screen shots of Crysis posted on the net are fake.
BTW: The game play in Crysis is one of the worst shooters in terms of game play.



Any PC gammer who buys a quad-core has no idea what they are doing.



Majin-Tenshinhan said:
Too bad PC controls are far superior, then.

I would rather play any game(except RTS and MMORPGs)on a controller than a keyboard, IMO controllers are better.