Lol, what for? They have the same specs.I bet you couldn't tell the diff
I wonder how many of those 1 million+ CoD console players will switch to Crysis 2 multiplayer. Having played demo, I doubt that many will.
@thedarkestfaction God damn you! That's some really scary shit!
Somebody watches too much Scarface..lol
But yeah, pretty funny rant
MAXIMUM BLUUURRRRRRR..
LoL
Yes they do look pretty identical. But PS3 has constant framerate issues, FACT.
@Alpha-Male22
Yes you're right. I played it on both PS3 and Xbox360 at the same time on 2 TVs and it was PS3 version which had constant framerate problems, pop-ins were noticeable, blurry textures in some areas, etc. Like you said
The title is misleading, no connection to the actual video
MW2 actually looks better..
I understand what you say and agree! But what I'm saying is that you can't blame those who like to read previews, reviews instead of checking out a demo(if it has one).
Not everyone has all that time and will to download all new demos for upcoming games. This is what reviews and previews are for - to help people decide whether it's worth it or not.
Buhahaha.. uhm... sorry.. But seriously who didn't expect this??
Quote from the article
"First of all, let me begin with the horrible textures pop in/out. This issue affects on the fun factor of the game and your visibility as it will make it hard for you to spot enemy players in the game. Believe me, sometimes you will be uncertain if an enemy player is standing/crouching/moving or it simply an object in the environment is about to load its textures. Crytek said that Crysis 2 “Taps Every Last Ounce Of Console Power” how can it be ...
Played the multiplayer beta on xbox for 2nd time and still not impressed at all. Graphics are nothing spectacular. Apart from realistic lightning engine, it looks like there's no AA, constant textures and shadows pop-in, sub HD, and still only 30 fps. CoD is nothing spectacular graphically too, but it has 60FPS which is much more easy on eyes.
But most importantly, the gameplay is nothing new, imho. It's just plain boring, same old shit once again. Once again they ...
Played the multiplayer beta on xbox for 2nd time and still not impressed at all. Graphics are nothing spectacular. Apart from realistic lightning engine, it looks like there's no AA, constant textures and shadows pop-in, sub HD, and still only 30 fps. CoD is nothing spectacular graphically too, but it has 60FPS which is much more easy on eyes.
But most importantly, the gameplay is nothing new, imho. It's just plain boring, same old shit once again. Once again they ...
Played the multiplayer beta on xbox for 2nd time and still not impressed at all. Graphics are nothing spectacular. Apart from realistic lightning engine, it looks like there's no AA, constant textures and shadows pop-in, sub HD, and still only 30 fps. CoD is nothing spectacular graphically too, but it has 60FPS which is much more easy on eyes.
But most importantly, the gameplay is nothing new, imho. It's just plain boring, same old shit once again. Once again they ...
Thank God..
"The fluidity of the graphics never lets up. Continuous 60 frames a second."
Stopped reading here. WTF is the guy smoking?? 60 fps? LOL. If you still don't believe me and want to see for yourself, just pop in any CoD game and compare^) Though on the other hand, the motion blur Crytek decided to use looks good and really smoothens the gfx
The demo looks Very good to my eyes. I thought it would be much worse. I just wish the framerate was 60fps, it would've been much better experience(but less polished gfx, yeah i know). Though the motion blur they used to smoothen fps is really nice.
And about Killzone 3.. To me it looks just about the same as KZ2, I can't see graphic improvements honestly. I'm not saying it looks BAD, because Killzone 2 was already a very beautiful looking game. Gameplay is abou...
Too Low