[QUOTE="thepwninator"][QUOTE="f50p90"]MGS4 DOES have best technical graphics. Try running Crysis on PS3 hardware, it won't look half as good as MGS4. That's the best use of hardwarekunu822
If it were based on doing the best with that which you are given, Riddick would've beaten Half-Life 2 for the award back in '04. Gamespot is stepping on their own precedents.Yeah, that was '04. I'm sure GameSpot's editors have changed since then, not to mention videogaming standards.
The main reason why MGS4 won this award is because it is TECHNICALLY better than Crysis Warhead. The developers of MGS4 were limited with the PS3, and based on what they had, they produced something spectacular. The Crysis Warhead developers were not limited at all.
Any average PC user who tries to play Crysis Warhead will be extremely dissappointed, unless for some reason they have some monster gaming machine. And that's the reason why Crysis Warhead didn't win this award. You need to have a VERY high-end PC to play it at its maximum capability.
This award is relative, not as straightforward as people here think.
Well back in 2004 the devlopers of Riddick were limited with the Xbox, and based on what they had, they produced something spectacurlar. The Doom 3 (winner of the best tech graphics) Developers were not limited at all. But Doom 3 still won.
I would say even on med. (A setting that would be fairly easy to get to on a fairly mid-range PC) Crysis Warhead would look better than MGS 4. I would even say Gears 2 looks better than MGS 4.
Log in to comment