It is against the ToU to take something someone said out of context, which is what you did.I didn't debold what you said, GS itself did that, due to me having to copy what you wrote since it didn't want to post it.
Yes I have read the whole article, in the end they pick the one they think is the most technically impressive game. They never compared textures, lighting or a bunch of other things that make up the graphics. For the most part they have just stated which they think is better without going into too much detail as why it is. Obiously the performance and all that are facts but as to which overall looks better is still opinion, especially since they don't actually go into that much depth. They also say "both Crysis 2 and Killzone 3 have a slew of next generation rendering techniques that only high end PC's with decked out SLI graphics cards are able to achieve" which you have still ignored (why is that?). That line is completely false, Crysis 2 is not the most demanding game on around and you most certainly do not need the computer described to run the game. That also leads me to believe they don't actually know too much about the tech behind the games and are just stating opinion. While I will say they have elaborated more than the likes of IGN but in the end it is still opinion as to which overall looks better.
Seen the video? You mean the low quality youtube video? It's hard to judge the difference between games (especially ones so close to each other in graphics) with a youtube video due to the compression of them.
Also even all the staff don't agree that KZ3 looks better, one of them believes that crysis 2 looks better. So with that in mind how can it not be an opinion since someone who works there believes the opposite of what you've been saying even when they are confronted with all the "facts".
soulitane
1)I never did this.. You posted, I replied. I didn't make your words, I didn't form your sentences. I just replied to a segment of your post.
2)Did you do this? Here's what were gonna do, you can compare Crysis 2 (X360) and Killzone 3 in all those areas, come back and show me the results. :)
3)All those links, including from IGN. Still don't have analysis/comparisons/etc. Why aren't those explained yet? :P It's odd he said that, but they still did their analysis/comparison/etc. I'd rather take their word than just someone saying it without proof.
4)That's not the point of that video, the video was to show the game running steady, as opposed to screens, not to mention the frame rate.
5)The congress of LOT took a vote, and the winner was Killzone 3. The breakdown.. breaks it down, techwise, and that's all you need to know. If you are going to mention one LOT guy, why aren't you going to talk about the rest? We Know Crysis 2 is sub HD and lacks steady FPS.
Log in to comment