How can you even know they're the best. We define who is best at competetive video games by playing other people and beating them. It just so happens that the best people playing in tournaments so the "underground" people never get a chance to play the best.

So how can you say that the "underground" people (who you probably have no clue are or can think of one individual person) are the best when there is no way they can be playing others of the same caliber?

ok man, trusth me i was watchin the Gaming world championship lasts nigth, and he was there he is not good, he played vs a girl and some kinds 15 years old lol, Underground is allways better cus we dont do it for the monye, we do it for passion,

IS like music world, The first cd of any band is always teh best one, then when they start making money they get cocky and they write crappy music, Same with this guys when they play, they play to get money

paabss

If you could keep your crappy generalisations to the video game world you would be doing everyone a favor. A lot of bands aren't fickle and don't sell out and I don't see how this applies to competetive gaming either. If you start sucking you're out just like any other competetive game/sport (Not saying gaming is a sport).

It's no different than the concept of Jimi Hendrix/Eric Clapton/Jimmy Page/Jeff Beck/whoever else you consider a great guitarist are not the most skilled guitarists in the world. They are just the best that are in the limelight, and it's a common principle that the most skilled people in any field never usually make it, mostly because they were never the most skilled to begin with if they are never able to make it.

Wrap your brain around that concept.

jetpower3

Not really applicable. Guitarists need technical ability as well as songwriting ability and they are vastly different. That's why a lot of skilled guitarists did not make it. Gaming just needs one thing, skill.

After a week all that matter is multiplayer, and COD4 kills Crysis in that area. All you graphic ______ voting for Crysis are shallow.ND_

See, now a console person would think that. Except Crysis has one of the most powerful editors ever. That means HUGE replay value on user created maps, mods, and weapons. Have fun playing your static games, and if not enjoy playing 7 dollars for 3 maps. Oh and by the way I own all three consoles and they all have their strengths but FPS is not one.

If Crysis gets bashed for having bad AI, please tell me what game beats it. For the love of God please don't mention Halo 3 or COD4. Those games were on such rails that the AI did not even have to really think for itself because it knew where you were at all times in scripted predefined scenarios.

The fact that the Koreans were the ones that had to react to YOU instead of you reacting to the enemy like most FPS do is refreshing in my opinion. I can't remember the last time I had a better time with a shooter, sans Half-life and Half-life 2 which it ranks up there with.

[QUOTE="Kantroce"][QUOTE="whoody12"]

I mean

Crysis:

wide open DAYlight inviorments, on a tropical island

Killzone:

all dark with cool lightning, althrough It has little to NO high-res textures

so on the one hand we have a game who innovates FPS shooters, while also adding future grafics and physics

and on the other we have a muddy pool with high poly characters and rather strange physics

to make my point, don't compare Crysis and KZ2, they are a totally different world

thepwninator

Wrong, Crysis has accurate day and night cycles. Besides, don't bash a game you haven't even played just because you want to be a fanboy. It's childish and annoying.

I was referring to him making a judgement on a game he has never played, Killzone 2.

[QUOTE="Kantroce"]

[QUOTE="Hoffgod"]Sorry, but unlike you I don't live in a fantasy world where all that matters is how much bang you get for your buck. I live in the real world where raw price matters. Do you get a lot more for a $2000 top-of-the-line PC than, say, a $250 Wii? Yes. Yes you do. BUT IT'S TWO THOUSAND ****ING DOLLARS.Ho-t-Gu-Y88

Translation: Ferrarris suck because I can't afford one.

Just because PCs can be expensive, it can't be argued for them being a bad medium as far as gaming is concerned, it just means not everyone can afford it. Gaming is really the first place I've seen this kind of thinking taking over.

It's especially funny when people try to flame someone for spending a bunch of money on their PC. You might as well be saying, "Damn you! Why are you more successful than me?" You'll never see a guy in a Honda Civic pull up to a guy in Ferrari and make fun of him for the money he spent on it. And if he did, he should be kicked squarely in the groin.

I don't have to upgrade my Ferrari every couple of years, do I?

You have to keep it maintained.