Anyone else totally unimpressed by Crysis 2 on console?

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Not impressed, a sequal released 5 years later that has made no improvements deserves no praise.

ocstew

But has been no improvement in 5 years...

screenshots dont give you the full story, the game looks way better on my TV than it does in those **** quality pics LOL. you are in still in denial, its really sad. maybe if you had played the game on your 360 instead you went for the PS3 version, oh well. sts106mat

screenshots dont give you the full story, the game looks way better on my TV than it does in those **** quality pics LOL. you are in still in denial, its really sad. maybe if you had played the game on your 360 instead you went for the PS3 version, oh well. sts106mat

how would that change anything when the two versions or equal? And, ignoring the issues of crysis 2 (framerate, pop up, glitches ect.) is just as much denial as cows claiming ps3 exclusives smoke it graphically.

[QUOTE="sts106mat"]screenshots dont give you the full story, the game looks way better on my TV than it does in those **** quality pics LOL. you are in still in denial, its really sad. maybe if you had played the game on your 360 instead you went for the PS3 version, oh well. campzor

LOL at this fanboy...have you played the 360 version though? If you have you will instantly pick up on the smoother framerate (although it doesn't make the PS3 version broken by any means).

Sources: I own both versions and have completed both versions.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="sts106mat"]screenshots dont give you the full story, the game looks way better on my TV than it does in those **** quality pics LOL. you are in still in denial, its really sad. maybe if you had played the game on your 360 instead you went for the PS3 version, oh well. sts106mat

how would that change anything when the two versions or equal? And, ignoring the issues of crysis 2 (framerate, pop up, glitches ect.) is just as much denial as cows claiming ps3 exclusives smoke it graphically.

well that shows just how much you know. it's a 12.5 % resolution difference, and at the same time the ps3 version is tripple buffered v - synced while the 360 version is not. Also, the ps3 version has more antisotropic filtering (AF) than the 360 version.

EDIT: so both versions are equal but different.

[QUOTE="sts106mat"][QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

how would that change anything when the two versions or equal? And, ignoring the issues of crysis 2 (framerate, pop up, glitches ect.) is just as much denial as cows claiming ps3 exclusives smoke it graphically.

theuncharted34

well that shows just how much you know. it's a 12.5 % resolution difference, and at the same time the ps3 version is tripple buffered v - synced while the 360 version is not. Also, the ps3 version has more antisotropic filtering (AF) than the 360 version.

Dear Lord. Can you guys stop, the differences are TINY, its not even worth arguing about. Its the same experience on BOTH consoles.

talk about denial, lemmings are no better for claiming superiority on crysis 2 (that the 360 version is better than the ps3 version) without knowing what they're talking about.

of course cows are doing the same thing with ps3 exclusives...

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="sts106mat"] 20% less resolution equals the same LOLtenaka2

well that shows just how much you know. it's a 12.5 % resolution difference, and at the same time the ps3 version is tripple buffered v - synced while the 360 version is not. Also, the ps3 version has more antisotropic filtering (AF) than the 360 version.

Dear Lord. Can you guys stop, the differences are TINY, its not even worth arguing about. Its the same experience on BOTH consoles.

what are you talking about? he claimed the 360 version was better, I showed him that they're equal. of course the differences are small.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="sts106mat"] 20% less resolution equals the same LOLsts106mat

well that shows just how much you know. it's a 12.5 resolution difference, and at the same time the ps3 version is tripple buffered v - synced while the 360 version is not. Also, the ps3 version has more antisotropic filtering (AF) than the 360 version.

you got me, the other source (think it was the swedish review) said the difference was 20%, my bad. still it makes a difference, look i am not bashing the PS3 version (i haven't played it), but the DF analysis states the image is cleaner and crisper on 360. personally i dont see any tearing and antisotropic filtering or whatever i couldn't care less. the game looks great to me. the majority verdict is in, its the best looking graphics on console at the moment. the cows were wrong the 360 could produce visuals the same / better than the PS3, why some are still denying it is fascinating, are they indoctrinated in some sort of cult or something LOL.

in screenshots. in motion, it's pretty much the same due to the games post processing effects and its anti aliaising method. and what AF does is clear up textures further in the distance, and of course the screen tearing on the 360 version is small it's still there why the ps3 version has none.

I'm not saying anything except that both versions are equal but different. as for performance, (framerate ect.) both versions perform better at different spots. all of this information is from my observation as well as the digital foundry and lens of truth articles :)

Eh don't really care anymore its already been shown the 360 is capable of what the ps3 is capable of...BEFORE crysis 2 was released now that crysis 2 is out there its just completely cemented as a fact.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="sts106mat"]

you got me, the other source (think it was the swedish review) said the difference was 20%, my bad. still it makes a difference, look i am not bashing the PS3 version (i haven't played it), but the DF analysis states the image is cleaner and crisper on 360. personally i dont see any tearing and antisotropic filtering or whatever i couldn't care less. the game looks great to me. the majority verdict is in, its the best looking graphics on console at the moment. the cows were wrong the 360 could produce visuals the same / better than the PS3, why some are still denying it is fascinating, are they indoctrinated in some sort of cult or something LOL.

sts106mat

in screenshots. in motion, it's pretty much the same due to the games post processing effects and its anti aliaising method. and what AF does is clear up textures further in the distance, and of course the screen tearing on the 360 version is small it's still there why the ps3 version has none.

I'm not saying anything except that both versions are equal but different. as for performance, (framerate ect.) both versions perform better at different spots. all of this information is from my observation as well as the digital foundry and lens of truth articles :)

[QUOTE="campzor"][QUOTE="sts106mat"] thats fair enough, though if you go look at campzors screenshots, he made some comment about "the jaggies hurting his eyes" i think he is sat too close to his screen. I also read somewhere that the PS3 version is locked to display at a 720p image, while the 360 allows it to upscale to 1080p, surely this makes a difference if you play on a bigger screen. i have better than 20/20 vision and it looks fantastic on my 42" set.sts106mat

well its not good for you to do that man, i play between 6-8ft 1.8-2.0m from my 42" tv, it seems to be the sweet spot. much further away and you cant read, too close and its hard to see whats going on, sit a bit further back and you wont notice little jaggies here and there. when you go to the cinema, do you sit in the front row with the 12 year olds? sit back man.

i have seen zero tearingsts106mat

Tearing isn't really a subject PC gamers are concerned with. Largely because PC gamers can just enable vsync if tearing bothers them.

all the shadows look fine sts106mat

I'll put this down to subjective. Because when I tried the game, even on maximum settings, the distance at which shadows rendered at their full resolution was quite short.