PSLifestyle writes: Crysis 2 has garnered massive attention in the recent week due to an erroneous PlayStation 3 demo which released to thousands of excited gamers.
The Ps3 versions of games are 90% identical. I havent played one yet where the differences stopped me enjoying the game. Most the time they dont even look worse, they just look different.
This whole debacle has been a perfect example of the media taking the tiniest difference and blowing it it all out of proportion and trying to crucify the PS version.
I completely agree with BathyJ. I find it stupid arguing over which console is superior over which over the tiniest detail and treating it as if it's a game breaker. I don't get the logic over that. Besides aren't both versions inferior in comparison to the PC version?
The PS3 version is solid. Why is that not enough for some. Some ofyou have your expectations to high for the PS3 and that is Sony's fault. There are things that PS3 can do better graphically, and there 360 does better. Developers I think make the mistake of telling people that the games will look the same. They can both have great quality but still look different. Nothing round with that.
I hope crytec is working to have each perform to the strengths of each console, and not paying attention to this supid fanboy war.
I loled. Your telling me the jaggies on the PS3 dont ruin games for you? I am kicking myself for getting DCUO on PS3 and not on PC for this very reason. Although i hear the populations are much higher on PS3.
"I already knew this. The PS3 is such a powerful console. I knew crytek wouldn't dissapoint."
Lol you didn't know anything...
I never really understood why people didn't like the Crysis series. I don't know if it's because they never had a PC good enough to play it so they downplayed the videos of it, but the gameplay was always top-notch to me. People put way too much effort into trying to flop it. "Buwahahahah look at the physics! HHAHAHA does this map have 100 lights? It doesn't? KZ3 all the way!".
Crysis is fun as hell, Crytek should've worked on the Predator games because that's exactly what I feel like when I play it. Going stealth and then seeing the guy creep up close to you like they see something, unstealthing into a choke hold and throwing them across the screen and shooting them while they're in the air like Desperado. You just have to be creative...if you just play it like COD then of course you'll get bored.
The Cry2 MP gameplay beats COD by a mile and for one simple reason hit detection. Even though Cry2 and BlOps both use P2P instead of dedicated servers, Cry2 feels a lot more consistent and reliable.
I really, really love KZ3, but I think I might be adding Crysis 2 to my collection really soon, my reasons are simple actually:
1) Open-type/Choice gameplay: You choose which route you take in a mission, you could go over a hill and flank them, take the stealth route on the left, or go tank, and go straight up the middle. In Killzone 3 and 2, everything is scripted, everything.
2) Story: I have to openly admit that KZ3's story could have been much, much, MUCH more than it was, and it's a shame, because if you check here, there's alot of story they could have used. I am interested in Crysis' story as well.
3) Art style: I like the minimalistic techno look that Crysis has going for it, rather than the much more gritty look Killzone 3 has. I am not saying KZ3 is bad in anyway for it's art style, just saying that the two games differ dramatically, even though they're both the Near-future FPS games.
4) Not cluttered: No matter where I played in KZ, online of off, in the snow covered arctic or city, everything felt like there was TOO much going on, not bad, because it shows how technically impressive Killzone is, but it made me feel scrunched in, and didn't help the feeling of linearity at all.
All of these reasons give me a reason to own both, I am selling my bad company 2, and only keeping medal of honor for the BF3 beta, then I'll be playing portal 2 for a looooong while.
Honestly at first I was totally going to pass on this game, but what I have seen lately makes me want to play it. My only problem was I could never get on to the demo, I really hope the multiplayer works well it looks awesome.
Not MIGHT,it looks NOWHERE near SP.In anything...AA,AF,post processing,fire effects,water...anything.Its like different game,I'm playing it now,5 hours in.
If that's the case then it's a shame that Crytek UK didn't do as good of a job on multiplayer than with their previous titles (Timesplitters).
I however will wait for opinions AFTER the game is released. I'd rather trust those that have played after released than those that have played a demo based on an old build (which was very buggy btw) and those that "supposively" have the game earlier.
Are you guys retarded. The mp is only designed by crytek UK (free radical) They didn't create a new engine. It'll still be the same engine as single player with toned down post processing. I swear they need to start giving IQ tests to people who buy computers and internet connection subscriptions. Like to everyone in the household besides toddlers. The internet would be a much better place. There are so many ignorant and uninformed people on this site it makes me dizzy. If you don't know the absolute truth about something don't post it...and the 360 and ps3 will be sub-native 720p with the ps3 a little lower in horizontal res than 360. Both version will be vertically 720 resolution.
it's not the same engine as mw2 first of all...it's the same engine as World at War which is based off the 1st COD game that treyarch took an built up. Treyarch are just shitty devs. It is not the same as mw2. See this is what i am talkin about...thanks for proving my point
I can create games that look completely different in terms of graphical finesse on unreal engine...what's your point? look at mods for PC games, same engine, some look better, some look worse.
I agree. I have seen the xbox 360 and PS3 version and the PS3 version looks better. I am still amazed on how awesome the graphics are on the 360. Pc still looks the best.
Says a known sony fanboy site. This site gave GT5 a perfect 10...game averages 84% by everybody else. This site gave KZ3 a perfect 10....game averages 85% by everybody else.
I'll believe it when I hear it from a site that doesn't sound like the domain was made by a couple of kids.
Why do people keep saying things like this? That guy from IGN saw the multiplayer portion of the game and he saw what most of us saw, the PS3 version was lagging behind the 360 version.
He didn't see campaign footage from both versions as far as I know. Judging by the campaign footage the two versions look pretty damn close. But IGN was right about the demos.
You don't compare them, because they are demos, it's a cheap troll bait article, and now they look like biased idiots. So yes IGN just pulled an IGN that's why the whole industry hates them because they make there bias so obvious.
Yep, he saw the footage and, even though he knew it was a demo, jumped to conclusions and assumed the worst knowing full well it would, ultimately, achieve nothing but flamebait.
"still want it and to me mp demos dont ever play as well as the retail release. i know the diff between a beta and a demo but kz3 beta played horrible but the actual game played better. crysis2 demo is fun for me and i like it so whatever"
....but people will be slaves to the opinions of gaming 'journalism'. all you see here is something popular being repeated by users who fail at critical thinking but will disagree with others who dont. not to mention blind fanboyism. its funny
wowowowWow amazing....
Crytek confirmed that the Singleplayer campaign & Multiplayer are being developed by two seperate studios..
So, The Multiplayer might not look as good as this footage of the SP campaign..
Glad to see everything settled.
I'm most interested in the resolution. Any word on that?