Totally agree with you there; gamers and critics alike should man-up (in the videogame sense) and stop complaining about high difficulty. If the game is really too hard for you, then turn the Difficulty Setting down to Easy of something. People like me want a challenge in their games. The original PC Far Cry was a pretty challenging game. I can only hope and dream that Far Cry 2 comes close to matching it.
Yeppity
@KnaveX: Obviously, you haven't even laid eyes on a single MINUTE of gameplay for this game. There are no health packs. At least, none that you walk over and instantly heal yourself magically.
@moodymofo: What do you mean running around looking for health packs? You can instantly heal yourself up by the simple press of a button. It's uses a system similar to F.E.A.R., where you have a set number times that you can heal yourself.
Not cumbersome at all, really. Plus, y...
Usually, in such video comparisons, we see the 360 version have deeper colors and an overall darker gamma. However, in this case, we clearly see that it's the other way around, for once. This is probably because the testers actually did the right thing and turned on the "Full Range" option on the PS3 settings, and they also seemed to set the 360's black level setting to too low of a setting (yes, the 360 has Range controls as well).
To specify, no NORMAL person, with anything better to do, would notice it and then whine about it. Does that clarify anything for you, Mr. "Suck-it?"
What are you, a 13-year old, Degeneration-X fan?
That's just nitpicking on his part. The reason they use the "X" technique for the foliage is, 1) because it's a cutscene, and 2) the player doesn't ever get close enough to that part of the map/level to see that the foliage is "X-shaped" in the first place.
No one's gonna notice this crap! Nor will anyone care.
I sorta like socialism, when I choose it.
What a wuss. Seriously, who gets scared by exploration in a videogame?
We're beginning to see that KZ2 has real nice-looking ground textures, but that's only a small part of the equation. What I'm most encouraged by is the very atmospheric, effective lighting and shadow effects, and the amount of activity and visual flair that goes on at once.
It looks alright. The gun and hand model looks kinda crappy, atm. The jungle areas actually seem to look better than FC2, but the open savanna areas don't look as good.
I don't think a little homemade mod experiment is going to be a substitute for a 50 square kilometer open/explorable African world, however.
Oh McCain, you old skirt chaser. You always did have a thing for the pretty broads.
A Vice Presidential candidate has no business WINKING in a debate. No business, period.
And this Palin character, this publicity stunt, has no business being a vice president.
Um. What the hell?
Yes, I understand the difference between upscaled and native resolutions, but nowhere in those article scans do I see any mention of the numbers "1080." Could someone point it out to me where it states that WKC will run at 1080p?
The review didn't just say that the PS3 version doesn't improve the graphics. The review actually implies that the 360 version is better graphically:
"If you're a lucky multi-format owner who favours visuals over some extra puzzle levels, you're probably better off with 360's original."
I'm personally somewhat disheartened and disappointed by this (if it's indeed true).
The main problem here is that PSM implies that the 360 version looks better, graphically, than the PS3 version, which came out a year later (more development time). If that's really true, then that's a big shock and disappointment to me. I was really expecting this port it to at least graphically match the 360 version, as the developers have stated.
I'll have to wait for more reviews, and more comparisons. I'll still probably pick this game up regardless.
I must be going blind, because I don't see the numbers "1080" anyway in those two scans above. Could someone please point them out, or explain what the text says? I see "HD" but that's about it.
I'm really trying think of why the 360 doesn't have many 1080p games, while the PS3 has a good number of them now. While I'm pretty certain the PS3 is the stronger system overall, with more performance potential, one common line of thinking out there is that the 360 has stronger GPU component, and that it's generally the easier system to develop for. At least that's one line of thinking.
I only have a PS3. No Xbox 360.
And I would say that these screens look really good. But "jaw-dropping," or "amazing," or unbelievable" is just a little over-the-top.
I really hate these leading, biased, opinionated N4G article titles. It should have been just "New Resistance 2 Screens," without the editorializing from the contributor with an obvious agenda to try to convince everyone that the screens you're about to see are "O...
What the hell is "Provacitively," a new ED drug?