if Crysis is really the best game graphically, why are we impressed with U2????

i think all these topics that talk abt U2 VS Crysis are merely a proof that U2 is a worthy competitor for the graphics king, U2 gfx are underrated when compared wz Crysis, Crysis is better no doubt, but U2 is really impressive, that's why we see one of these Crysis VS U2 topics (like this one) like every 5 min...........it's always Crysis, PC fans didn't ask themselves why the PC gaming didn't offere any better game graphically since 2006???, while console gaming is improving wz every game...........usually when you see Crysis Vs U2 topic, you see a PC fan or an xbotwho can't accept a gfx king on a rival console, pathetic.

imo, Crysis is better graphically, but U2 has done a good job to impress us even after seeing Crysis.

because uncharted 2 is damn impressive for a CONSOLE game. We all know PC games are superior but what point shoving that down everyones throats?

Two options:

I didn't understood your OP properly

or

Your OP isn't helpful in any way, it runs in circles, and is just a lame attemp to continue this U2 vs Crysis fad while adding some trollish comments againts hermits and lemmings.

Because consolites haven't played Crysis. They've only seen screenshots so they believe the U2 bullshots are proof that it's compareable to Crysis.

Because its a damn good looking game.

I think towards the end of last gen, we reached the point where games dont look bad anymore. And what i mean by that is say 10 years from now and we look back at a game like conker for the xbox, sure it wont look no way near as good as whats out then, but it definately wont look bad, which cant be said pre-end of last gen.

So what im saying is it looks good, deal with it, buy it.

Cause U2 is awesome looking for a console game. Which is limited in its hardware. PC isint really limited when it comes to how powerful it can be.

Because the best way to go through life is to talk about the same thing over and over again.

Here I'll say what you want everyone to say

Uncharted 2 is the most graphically superior game ever made and even Crysis can't compete with it.

Just don't read any other posts and you should be okay

Believe in it

Because it's on a console and features superb animations that (I think) are lacking in a game like Crysis.

Also, just because Crysis is the best doesn't mean Uncharted 2 is diregarded as a great looking game.

You don't disregard a local University or Yale because Harvard is known to be the "best"

And it happens again and again and again and...

"If Crysis is really the best game graphically, why are we impressed with U2????"

Because,

• U2 is Better than Crysis
• U2 has better graphics than any 360 game
• It's Uncharted 2

:)

And it happens again and again and again and...

Because the majority of people can only play Crysis on low or medium settings w/o AA.

because uncharted 2 is damn impressive for a CONSOLE game. We all know PC games are superior but what point shoving that down everyones throats?

Animal-Mother

"If Crysis is really the best game graphically, why are we impressed with U2????"

Because,

• U2 is Better than Crysis
• U2 has better graphics than any 360 game
• It's Uncharted 2

:)

PS3_CowBoy

[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"]

because uncharted 2 is damn impressive for a CONSOLE game. We all know PC games are superior but what point shoving that down everyones throats?

Too_tight_shoes

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

And it happens again and again and again and...

Shattered007

Ah yes the Cows, the only console group in SW arrogant/ignorant enough to think their console performs at the level of a 2009 PC. Ironic that the group that went on so much about untapped potential would then refuse to believe the same from modern PC hardware, which is mostly cross platform limited at this point.

You would think Sony's promises back in 2005 not coming to fruition would knock some sense into them, but like any indoctrinated fanatic they ignore and recognise what is convenient for them.

Hopefully Sony will run out of money they are willing to burn and Cows slam back down into reality, PS3 couldn't produce the sort of games Cows egobate over without Sony's direct funding.

Crysis is arguably the best looking game on PC. Uncharted 2 is arguably the best on consoles. That is why its impressive to many people.

Wanna know what I think? People care way too much about graphics these days.mo0ksi

Uno on xbox live arcade=best game released this gen.

Name another game apart from crysis/warhead that looks better than Gears 2, Killzone 2 or uncharted 2?Too_tight_shoes

Okay,

ArmA II

Batman: Arkham Asylum

Cryostasis

Empire: Total War (mainly considering the scale)

Far Cry 2

Grand Theft Auto IV

Red Faction Guerrilla

Resident Evil 5

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl

World In Conflict

I could list some more, but you get the point. Note that while most of the multiplats listed will outshine the console counterparts without much of a struggle at high settings even at decent resolutions, where you will really notice the difference is at 1080p or higher resolutions.

Don't even bother replying if you haven't played said games at above 1080p. I have (well, not World in Conflict, since I still had my old GPU at that time), and nothing on consoles can compete (yes, I have played the console games you mentioned quite a few times, too).

For instance, I'm playing Batman: Arkham Asylum right now, and PhysX support as well as the ability to run the game at double, hell, even triple the resolution of the PS3/360 makes a world of difference. Even more so than I had expected, honestly.

[QUOTE="Too_tight_shoes"]Name another game apart from crysis/warhead that looks better than Gears 2, Killzone 2 or uncharted 2?the_delta

Okay,

ArmA II

Batman: Arkham Asylum

Cryostasis

Empire: Total War (mainly considering the scale)

Far Cry 2

Grand Theft Auto IV

Red Faction Guerrilla

Resident Evil 5

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl

World In Conflict

I could list some more, but you get the point. Note that while most of the multiplats listed will outshine the console counterparts without much of a struggle at high settings even at decent resolutions, where you will really notice the difference is at 1080p or higher resolutions.

Don't even bother replying if you haven't played said games at above 1080p. I have (well, not World in Conflict, since I still had my old GPU at that time), and nothing on consoles can compete (yes, I have played the console games you mentioned quite a few times, too).

For instance, I'm playing Batman: Arkham Asylum right now, and PhysX support as well as the ability to run the game at double, hell, even triple the resolution of the PS3/360 makes a world of difference. Even more so than I had expected, honestly.

i think all these topics that talk abt U2 VS Crysis are merely a proof that U2 is a worthy competitor for the graphics king, U2 gfx are underrated when compared wz Crysis, Crysis is better no doubt, but U2 is really impressive, that's why we see one of these Crysis VS U2 topics (like this one) like every 5 min...........it's always Crysis, PC fans didn't ask themselves why the PC gaming didn't offere any better game graphically since 2006???, while console gaming is improving wz every game...........usually when you see Crysis Vs U2 topic, you see a PC fan or an xbotwho can't accept a gfx king on a rival console, pathetic.

imo, Crysis is better graphically, but U2 has done a good job to impress us even after seeing Crysis.

2mrw

Agreed. It is impressive that we even have debates between a 3 year old platform and current PCs. Kudos to Naughty Dog!

Agreed. It is impressive that we even have debates between a 3 year old platform and current PCs. Kudos to Naughty Dog!

skektek

Kudos to Naughty Dog because Cows inflated ego makes them compare every recent title to PC gaming?

Wonderful rational you have there.

Also I'm not interested in debating with you over this, as far as I'm concerned all the Cows in SW are acting like total (word I'd get moderated for) right now.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

Agreed. It is impressive that we even have debates between a 3 year old platform and current PCs. Kudos to Naughty Dog!

AnnoyedDragon

Kudos to Naughty Dog because Cows inflated ego makes them compare every recent title to PC gaming?

Wonderful rational you have there.

Also I'm not interested in debating with you over this, as far as I'm concerned all the Cows in SW are acting like total (word I'd get moderated for) right now.

i think all these topics that talk abt U2 VS Crysis are merely a proof that U2 is a worthy competitor for the graphics king, U2 gfx are underrated when compared wz Crysis, Crysis is better no doubt, but U2 is really impressive, that's why we see one of these Crysis VS U2 topics (like this one) like every 5 min...........it's always Crysis, PC fans didn't ask themselves why the PC gaming didn't offere any better game graphically since 2006???, while console gaming is improving wz every game...........usually when you see Crysis Vs U2 topic, you see a PC fan or an xbotwho can't accept a gfx king on a rival console, pathetic.

imo, Crysis is better graphically, but U2 has done a good job to impress us even after seeing Crysis.

2mrw

Has there been a PS3 exclusive that wasn't compared to Crysis? Maybe you forgot how delusional cows really are?

[QUOTE="skektek"]

Agreed. It is impressive that we even have debates between a 3 year old platform and current PCs. Kudos to Naughty Dog!

AnnoyedDragon

Kudos to Naughty Dog because Cows inflated ego makes them compare every recent title to PC gaming?

Wonderful rational you have there.

Also I'm not interested in debating with you over this, as far as I'm concerned all the Cows in SW are acting like total (word I'd get moderated for) right now.

More often than not it is PC fanboys, such as yourself, that raise the debate when they drop in a CONSOLE graphics thread.

More often than not it is PC fanboys, such as yourself, that raise the debate when they drop in a CONSOLE graphics thread.

skektek

Yeah, because the last few days of Crysis threads were started by PC gamers, weren't they?

[QUOTE="skektek"]

More often than not it is PC fanboys, such as yourself, that raise the debate when they drop in a CONSOLE graphics thread.

AnnoyedDragon

Yeah, because the last few days of Crysis threads were started by PC gamers, weren't they?

You have to look at the big picture, my myopic friend ;)

Because the PS3 its all you gotLookAnDrolL

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]

Agreed. It is impressive that we even have debates between a 3 year old platform and current PCs. Kudos to Naughty Dog!

skektek

Kudos to Naughty Dog because Cows inflated ego makes them compare every recent title to PC gaming?

Wonderful rational you have there.

Also I'm not interested in debating with you over this, as far as I'm concerned all the Cows in SW are acting like total (word I'd get moderated for) right now.

More often than not it is PC fanboys, such as yourself, that raise the debate when they drop in a CONSOLE graphics thread.

You have to look at the big picture, my myopic friend ;)

skektek

Go on then, how do you intend to blame PC gamers for Cows activity?

Only thing impressive in Uncharted 2 is the animations IMO. I really don't see much else. Some will cite the scope but the game itself is linear so the areas aren't explorable. So it's a useless point.

Wow sometimes Im ashamed to be a gamer... with all the arragance surrounding me. Some of you actualy believe playing Resident evil 5 on a 360 or PS3 is like day a night when compared with the PC counterpart, just to let you know no matter what resolution I throw it at stalker may "technically" be superior to gears of war 2 especialy it its running at 1900*1200 with 4xAA but it doesnt look better than gears of war and the same thing goes for most of the games you've people list. Its like saying the size of womans breasts will make her overall better looking... games dont need to be 1080p plus to look great you ___!Too_tight_shoes

yeah too bad looking great has little to do with graphics. as evidenced by a lot of console games bad or average graphics can 'look' good in the hands of a skilled artist.

graphics are the tech behind the looks and visuals ie if it runs at a higher resolution it has better graphics. if it has higher resolution textures it has better graphics. if it has a larger scale it has better graphics.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

Kudos to Naughty Dog because Cows inflated ego makes them compare every recent title to PC gaming?

Wonderful rational you have there.

Also I'm not interested in debating with you over this, as far as I'm concerned all the Cows in SW are acting like total (word I'd get moderated for) right now.

Brainkiller05

More often than not it is PC fanboys, such as yourself, that raise the debate when they drop in a CONSOLE graphics thread.

games dont need to be 1080p plus to look great youToo_tight_shoes

It depends on the game.

PC native games that utilize modern hardware take advantage of higher resolution art assets than consoles, so higher resolutions are needed to take full advantage of such assets. If the game was built on 256mb vram and 720p like on consoles; then you could argue resolution only aids image clarity and reduces jaggies.

I don't think console users actually realize just how blurry their game image is, it's not like they are looking at it up close. PC screens are right in your face, so blurriness and jagginess of a console resolution becomes more noticeable.

Even if I crank AA right up to hide the jaggies, 1280x800 simply cannot compare with the higher resolutions.