C'mon guys, face it, nothing on Consoles beats Crysis!

Why do console owners continue to try and claim Crysis has been beaten by games like MGS4 and Gears 2???

If you have a fully beefed up PC (which i dont), nothing can touch Crysis. There are certain games that maybe slightly better it in terms of art style but, on a technical level, it blows most other stuff out the water.

Also, enough with the MGS4 argument! Yes, during cutscenes MGS4 has some great animation, but during gameplay (which is what is most important), the movements look rigid and unrealistic.

Yes, it's nice that other games got a chance at the graphics award this year, but don't go thinking that MGS4 and Gears 2 have some how beaten Crysis.

Oh, and I am not a PC fanboy type... I own a reasonable system but it's not a gaming PC. I do most my gaming on the PS3

The only bad thing you can say about crysis is that MOST pc gamers have not experienced it in its full glory due to hardware limitations.

why do you consider the graphics department to be so important? i find console-level graphics to be quite acceptable, and cheaper, as i only possess about 5 games, with maybe one or two to come in the next year, and old ones to be sold.

so, to summarize, pc is great, yes. but consoles are fine with me.

and to actually answer your question, anyone who fools themselves into thinking consoles are more powerful than pcs, are fools themselves.

why do you consider the graphics department to be so important? i find console-level graphics to be quite acceptable, and cheaper, as i only possess about 5 games, with maybe one or two to come in the next year, and old ones to be sold.

so, to summarize, pc is great, yes. but consoles are fine with me.

and to actually answer your question, anyone who fools themselves into thinking consoles are more powerful than pcs, are fools themselves.

thesmiter

Why do console owners continue to try and claim Crysis has been beaten by games like MGS4 and Gears 2???

If you have a fully beefed up PC (which i dont), nothing can touch Crysis. There are certain games that maybe slightly better it in terms of art style but, on a technical level, it blows most other stuff out the water.

Also, enough with the MGS4 argument! Yes, during cutscenes MGS4 has some great animation, but during gameplay (which is what is most important), the movements look rigid and unrealistic.

Yes, it's nice that other games got a chance at the graphics award this year, but don't go thinking that MGS4 and Gears 2 have some how beaten Crysis.

Oh, and I am not a PC fanboy type... I own a reasonable system but it's not a gaming PC. I do most my gaming on the PS3

The only bad thing you can say about crysis is that MOST pc gamers have not experienced it in its full glory due to hardware limitations.

thetruespin

1. The art of Crysis is not good for me, thus many other games are vastly more appealing to look at

2. Crysis is not the end of all gaming, it is a boring shooter, i like RPGs, so any RPG and their epic art is better than a the generic jungles of Crysis to me

So, what are you talking about ? An good engine does not make a game the best evar, just a good looking game for those that like that art i hate that is

[QUOTE="thesmiter"]

why do you consider the graphics department to be so important? i find console-level graphics to be quite acceptable, and cheaper, as i only possess about 5 games, with maybe one or two to come in the next year, and old ones to be sold.

so, to summarize, pc is great, yes. but consoles are fine with me.

and to actually answer your question, anyone who fools themselves into thinking consoles are more powerful than pcs, are fools themselves.

imprezawrx500

i'm sure it is a good game. i am ignorant in the matter of how good it is, though, as i have been unable to play it. i answered as to the graphics, which are universally accepted to be top quality, and usually bring up the biggest nonsensical arguments.

MGS4 looks better because it won the graphics award.Lto_thaG

[QUOTE="Lto_thaG"]MGS4 looks better because it won the graphics award.bethwo

Yes I agree too, because GS said so.

[QUOTE="bethwo"][QUOTE="Lto_thaG"]MGS4 looks better because it won the graphics award.EZs

Yes I agree too, because GS said so.

[QUOTE="EZs"]

[QUOTE="bethwo"] I agreebethwo

Yes I agree too, because GS said so.

There's a lot more to graphics than people even think about as far as awards go. At first glance , it is easy to see the eyecandy of crysis and know that the resolution or "photo-realism" is higher ...... but when you play both games in their entirety you start to understand and process what's being rendered , how it looks as a cohesive experience , how it performers within the world and gameplay scenarios , and everything about the visual experience. Awards aren't probably just meant to just shine light on some technical feats in games or certain superiority in spots , but how well it all works together and performers for the game itself.

Nobody is denying that Crysis looks great or better than MGS4 on the surface if you show a screenshot of a section of a game , but it doesn't feel like a very cohesive game in comparison .... with inconsistent visual design .... not to mention the pop-in , bugs/gliches , and weird animations/physics anomalies over a 5 hour experience. Those might not have been in abundance to make the game not great technically , but it doesn't feel as polished and cohesive as it should given the surface wow factor when you're actually playing it as MGS4.

What MGS4 gives up is resolution or photo-realism or a texture comparison.... it supersedes that with striking visuals , terrific design and renders , cohesion and immersion , great effects , high polish , smooth performance , impressive transitions .... all through an epic 20+ hour game with so many different kinds of gameplay aspects for the platfrom they are working with. The kind of engine that they had to put together to pull off the war scenarios with lots of enemies battling each other , otoc-camo design , vehicle chase scenes , shooting and effects , Gekko encounters , hand to hand combat , mech battle , split screen (gameplay/cutscenes) , cutscene to gameplay transitions , boss battles , AI and animations , codec visuals , character models ..... all while looking impressive and cohesive over a 20+ hour game is just completely bananas.It was a stunning achievement.

But hey , I'm not graphics expert .... just a casual observer giving people another angle to put the best graphics awards in a bit of context.

why do you consider the graphics department to be so important? i find console-level graphics to be quite acceptable, and cheaper, as i only possess about 5 games, with maybe one or two to come in the next year, and old ones to be sold.

so, to summarize, pc is great, yes. but consoles are fine with me.

and to actually answer your question, anyone who fools themselves into thinking consoles are more powerful than pcs, are fools themselves.

thesmiter

why do you consider the graphics department to be so important? i find console-level graphics to be quite acceptable, and cheaper, as i only possess about 5 games, with maybe one or two to come in the next year, and old ones to be sold.

so, to summarize, pc is great, yes. but consoles are fine with me.

and to actually answer your question, anyone who fools themselves into thinking consoles are more powerful than pcs, are fools themselves.

thesmiter

[QUOTE="bethwo"][QUOTE="Lto_thaG"]MGS4 looks better because it won the graphics award.EZs

Yes I agree too, because GS said so.

I, too, agree. I used to think Crysis looked better than MGSIV after playing both, but Gamespot showed me the error of my ways. ALL HAIL GAMESPOT.

If you look past the graphic buzz Crysis is just another FPS that looks nice. You need more than awesome graphics to make an awesome game.pp222

Luckily, Crysis was awesome gameplay as well!

If you look past the graphic buzz Crysis is just another FPS that looks nice. You need more than awesome graphics to make an awesome game.pp222

This is quite sad. Hermits have so little to be proud of...skektek

[QUOTE="thesmiter"]

why do you consider the graphics department to be so important? i find console-level graphics to be quite acceptable, and cheaper, as i only possess about 5 games, with maybe one or two to come in the next year, and old ones to be sold.

so, to summarize, pc is great, yes. but consoles are fine with me.

and to actually answer your question, anyone who fools themselves into thinking consoles are more powerful than pcs, are fools themselves.

Stevo_the_gamer

i'm quite fine with the technical power of the games i play on consoles. cod4, oblivion, those are basically the only games i play. i don't need this 'technical power' you're refering to. i really don't. games are games.

i play on a crappy 6 year-old tv that blacks out for a second whenever a flashbang is thrown. this really doesn't make a difference to me. i don't understand why some people absolutely can't play unless they're playing the most advanced, graphically stunning pcs and games on the best hd screens with ridiculous sound set-ups, and over $35-$40 on a mouse and keyboard. wow...

i guess i'll never understand.

slower loads and downgraded graphics are fine. they're faster and prettier than last gen, so i'm happy.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="thesmiter"]

why do you consider the graphics department to be so important? i find console-level graphics to be quite acceptable, and cheaper, as i only possess about 5 games, with maybe one or two to come in the next year, and old ones to be sold.

so, to summarize, pc is great, yes. but consoles are fine with me.

and to actually answer your question, anyone who fools themselves into thinking consoles are more powerful than pcs, are fools themselves.

thesmiter

i'm quite fine with the technical power of the games i play on consoles. cod4, oblivion, those are basically the only games i play. i don't need this 'technical power' you're refering to. i really don't. games are games.

i play on a crappy 6 year-old tv that blacks out for a second whenever a flashbang is thrown. this really doesn't make a difference to me. i don't understand why some people absolutely can't play unless they're playing the most advanced, graphically stunning pcs and games on the best hd screens with ridiculous sound set-ups, and over $35-$40 on a mouse and keyboard. wow...

i guess i'll never understand.

slower loads and downgraded graphics are fine. they're faster and prettier than last gen, so i'm happy.

Some people want top-of-the-line graphics and expensive input devices. I don't see why it's so hard to understand that not everybody is like you.

I don't see the point of this thread. If you are sane then you would know that Crysis beats everything out their:)JangoWuzHere

There's your problem :P

Another Crysis thread?? It got beat this year there is no changing that fact no matter how it's worded.:roll:jasonheyman

Nobody mentioned any award, they are just saying how Crysis has the best graphics. Which it does.

[QUOTE="jasonheyman"]Another Crysis thread?? It got beat this year there is no changing that fact no matter how it's worded.:roll:steve17989

Nobody mentioned any award, they are just saying how Crysis has the best graphics. Which it does.

And if it had the best graphics wheres it's award stating that?

[QUOTE="steve17989"]

[QUOTE="jasonheyman"]Another Crysis thread?? It got beat this year there is no changing that fact no matter how it's worded.:roll:jasonheyman

Nobody mentioned any award, they are just saying how Crysis has the best graphics. Which it does.

And if it had the best graphics wheres it's award stating that?

Why do console owners continue to try and claim Crysis has been beaten by games like MGS4 and Gears 2???

If you have a fully beefed up PC (which i dont), nothing can touch Crysis. There are certain games that maybe slightly better it in terms of art style but, on a technical level, it blows most other stuff out the water.

Also, enough with the MGS4 argument! Yes, during cutscenes MGS4 has some great animation, but during gameplay (which is what is most important), the movements look rigid and unrealistic.

Yes, it's nice that other games got a chance at the graphics award this year, but don't go thinking that MGS4 and Gears 2 have some how beaten Crysis.

Oh, and I am not a PC fanboy type... I own a reasonable system but it's not a gaming PC. I do most my gaming on the PS3

The only bad thing you can say about crysis is that MOST pc gamers have not experienced it in its full glory due to hardware limitations.

thetruespin

Why would a PC gamer care what console gamers do?

There's a lot more to graphics than people even think about as far as awards go. At first glance , it is easy to see the eyecandy of crysis and know that the resolution or "photo-realism" is higher ...... but when you play both games in their entirety you start to understand and process what's being rendered , how it looks as a cohesive experience , how it performers within the world and gameplay scenarios , and everything about the visual experience. Awards aren't probably just meant to just shine light on some technical feats in games or certain superiority in spots , but how well it all works together and performers for the game itself.

Nobody is denying that Crysis looks great or better than MGS4 on the surface if you show a screenshot of a section of a game , but it doesn't feel like a very cohesive game in comparison .... with inconsistent visual design .... not to mention the pop-in , bugs/gliches , and weird animations/physics anomalies over a 5 hour experience. Those might not have been in abundance to make the game not great technically , but it doesn't feel as polished and cohesive as it should given the surface wow factor when you're actually playing it as MGS4.

What MGS4 gives up is resolution or photo-realism or a texture comparison.... it supersedes that with striking visuals , terrific design and renders , cohesion and immersion , great effects , high polish , smooth performance , impressive transitions .... all through an epic 20+ hour game with so many different kinds of gameplay aspects for the platfrom they are working with. The kind of engine that they had to put together to pull off the war scenarios with lots of enemies battling each other , otoc-camo design , vehicle chase scenes , shooting and effects , Gekko encounters , hand to hand combat , mech battle , split screen (gameplay/cutscenes) , cutscene to gameplay transitions , boss battles , AI and animations , codec visuals , character models ..... all while looking impressive and cohesive over a 20+ hour game is just completely bananas.It was a stunning achievement.

But hey , I'm not graphics expert .... just a casual observer giving people another angle to put the best graphics awards in a bit of context.

Nike_Air

Crysis has no graphic design halo is a much better game. Halo is really good, shame you PC gamers have never had the chance to try it. Crysis has like no players cause it's bad, halo has loads. Halo is the best game to ever be released.
xboxfan990

This is so true. Most PC games like Crysis has no absolute artistic design and are just looking flatout realism. While you have games on consoles like Okami which are true works of art. This is why I prefer consoles.

[QUOTE="xboxfan990"]Crysis has no graphic design halo is a much better game. Halo is really good, shame you PC gamers have never had the chance to try it. Crysis has like no players cause it's bad, halo has loads. Halo is the best game to ever be released.
Olimar_the_Min

This is so true. Most PC games like Crysis has no absolute artistic design and are just looking flatout realism. While you have games on consoles like Okami which are true works of art. This is why I prefer consoles.

What about Warsow?

Its a PC game with amazing art

Oh and its free.

Another Crysis thread?? It got beat this year there is no changing that fact no matter how it's worded.:roll:jasonheyman

Why do console owners continue to try and claim Crysis has been beaten by games like MGS4 and Gears 2???

If you have a fully beefed up PC (which i dont), nothing can touch Crysis. There are certain games that maybe slightly better it in terms of art style but, on a technical level, it blows most other stuff out the water.

Also, enough with the MGS4 argument! Yes, during cutscenes MGS4 has some great animation, but during gameplay (which is what is most important), the movements look rigid and unrealistic.

Yes, it's nice that other games got a chance at the graphics award this year, but don't go thinking that MGS4 and Gears 2 have some how beaten Crysis.

Oh, and I am not a PC fanboy type... I own a reasonable system but it's not a gaming PC. I do most my gaming on the PS3

The only bad thing you can say about crysis is that MOST pc gamers have not experienced it in its full glory due to hardware limitations.

Another Crysis thread?? It got beat this year there is no changing that fact no matter how it's worded.:roll:jasonheyman

[QUOTE="bethwo"][QUOTE="EZs"]

Yes I agree too, because GS said so.

Floppy_Jim

screw gamespot, and crysis >>>> all

Stop beating it. It's dead.

Stop beating it. It's dead.

The_Game21x

my sig shows how i feel about all of thisshakmaster13