Hell No! Did God of War 2 delayed the next gen.
Yeah but still the visual effects in Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 are lot more taxing to hardware thats what I wanted to say. Call of Duty as of now is using cheap visual effects which is giving it better performance.
Wtf? the gaints beat the hell out of that guy.
Oh! PC gamers,They are not annoying but just telling the truth. PC version is definitely better infact much better. If anyone has a good gaming PC. For him the PC version is straight away recommended.
Here we are finding hard see difference between the 360 and PS3 version but just keep the Maxed out PC version side by side and you have will admit it looks better. Of course it looks good on console too, but most gaming enthusiasts will go for the best only.
I think PS3 here has the advantage. Its spu have been used for ssao and texture streaming. Good job! Bethesda. But still its too early too say PS3 version is better. We can say so after the game is out for a month than a proper picture of comparison comes.
What a douchebag! all this for MW3. Its the worst in the series.
If I judge by the pics these 3 games stand out:
1. Final Fantasy XIII
2. Mass Effect 2
3. Witcher 2.
All other games look sublime. But Bethesda artwork is all about environment settings so its very hard to judge a Bethesda game by pics. Since their game are loaded with lots of details, which together produce a better quality. Also the visual effects they use are some of the most advanced.
Yep better invest on next gen console. I invested on Xbox 360 back in 2006 and I was enjoying best looking games on it. I think that most of the games ran on high settings on the 360. My frnds were only able to crank up to medium settings on PC (PC hardware is costly). AHH! Those were the days.
But yeah I had a red ring of death in 2007 and that was big blow for me. I felt like my gal frnd left me. SO take caution before investing on new hardware.
New Xbox is bond to come as we are progressing in computing power. But 2012 Holiday is too close. I would say 2013 Holiday is a very good approximation but its still too early.
COmon Battlfield 3 for PC is as good as Crysis 2 without a doubt. COD4:MW 3 is console based game as of now. It deliver high if not max settings on consoles at smooth 60 frames per second.
I don't think COD 4 stands a chance. The only good thing about COD is that it has lot effects like haze, smooth etc. Its also crisp but it looks very dated and cheap in comparison to BF 3.
Not in GOty nomination. THats a surprise. Even Gears 2 got GOTY nomination and this one is much better and surpasses the expectations.
Its coming one disk on xbox. Maybe a separate disk for Single Player and Multiplayer. Comon its Rockstar they can do it. No worries. All there games run well on Xbox.
Also single player campaign of GTA will be unplayable on 2 or more disks. For God sake those DLC's were different game and were on separate disk later.
But still I would say, its not good to keep DLC content on disc. Better make it downloadable. It just creates a bad taste for the person who is purchasing. Its not easy to justify it.
WTF?? ofcourse you can have higher details on PC. Its PC and quite frankly a PC with latest processor and GPU like 480 GTX blows everything on console.
I think GT5 is superior technically. But the devs were not able to implement what they want in the final game. Some features are way too advanced for this gen. But not having a complete 3D Environment is not the way to go in 2011.
I think devs made some wrong decisions for design choices in GT5.
IT is plain stupid to compare PC with the Xbox version. The Recommended requirements of BF3 on PC is ATI 6950 and NVidia 560 Ti. With that you can run the game on high specs not very High. Those cards are much power than Xenos and RSX maybe even 10 times or more in comparision.
That's like running Crysis on PS2.
So I think making BF3 run on consoles is some thing miraculous.
I think there is no need of an updgrade. EA is making this game run on xbox and PS3. With such hefty requirement I dont think that the console even have 50% of hadrware power against the minimum specs.
Probably the requirements are too inflated. I mean seriously Nvidia 560 Ti and AIT 6950 are the current gen mid range card they shouldn't be on the recommonded specs list.
Some of the advanced light effects are missing. I agree But overall certain features are still better. Like lighting has coolness to it and the color grading is nice. Game is looking overall smooth, its not rough aroung edges as it is in Medium or low settings of Crysis 1. Textures are high res expcept for some small objects. Also this game will play without a hitch on 360 or PS3. THats the biggest point.
On top of that the game looks really good on par with Crysis 2. Which...
Yeah, this is an example of bad journalism. The heading really doesnt seems to be appropriate. Its good to crticize with creativity.
But this is just bashing, which doesn't makes much sense either.
I think Dual GPU is great, just think if xbox or PS3 would have had dual GPU the current could have been atleast pushed for 2 years more. Current AIT's Dual GPU is 6990 but I think they will have the Radean 7XXX version. Many people are saying it would be pricey. BUt remember in 2005 xbox costed $399 and a 512 MB, Nvidia 7800 GTX (which is weaker than 540 GTX) was of $450.
The only bad thing is the 2 GB of RAM. I think its insufficent. THe console should have 8GB of XDR2 ram and...