Because Crysis warhead ran like crap on most modern PC's at the time. I couldnt run it well on a 8800 when it was released not at the maxed settings. It wasnt untill a year and a half later when I was able to get a card that ran it the way it was meant to be played. MGS4 on the other hand looked great for everybody that owned a PS3. wha...??? Thats not hard to comprehend look at the benchmarks it runs horribly on that card.[QUOTE="TheSterls"][QUOTE="ogvampire"]
that is true
how in teh world did MGS4 beat out Crysis:Warhead for 'Best Technical Graphics'?
seriously, thats insane
altairs_mentor
TheSterls' forum posts
Because Crysis warhead ran like crap on most modern PC's at the time. I couldnt run it well on a 8800 when it was released not at the maxed settings. It wasnt untill a year and a half later when I was able to get a card that ran it the way it was meant to be played. MGS4 on the other hand looked great for everybody that owned a PS3.[QUOTE="TheSterls"][QUOTE="ogvampire"]
that is true
how in teh world did MGS4 beat out Crysis:Warhead for 'Best Technical Graphics'?
seriously, thats insane
ogvampire
the same problem you have with crysis and not being able to play it at its max settings is the same issue as not everybody that has a ps3 has it connected to an HDTV, let alone hooked up right. since the ps3 doesnt come with hdmi, and quite a few consumers are clueless
the point is that the limit of the end user does NOT take away its merits
btw, Crysis: Warhead is actually less demanding than Crysis
You have no point here. How does my display device have anything to do with how a game runs on current hardware? My HDTV for an example is the same one I use on my pc and my PS3 . Were not compariing monitors were comparing how a game runs on current hardware. And if you read why many people gave MGS4 best visuals it won because of the level of graphics it acheived were far beyond anything on any of the current platforms while Crysis brought expensive rigs to there knees. A dev can make a game look as great as he wantes but if 99% of the public cant run it then does it deserve any rewards? That dev simply did not do a good job at getting his game to run on the current hardware which is precisly why Crysis Warhead did not beat MGS4 on many of the websites last year.[QUOTE="AAllxxjjnn"]They hardly 'blow the 360 away'. The only thing that's blowing anything away is the PC.Dead-MemoriesAgreed, PS3 graphics are hardly killer or mind-blowing, when compared to some of the other stuff the PC has been doing, or Gears 2 for example comes awfully close. Sorry but that statement is ridiculous. Uncharted 2 is far ahead of Gears 2 from a visual perspective. Far superior lighting effects, character models, animations, enviormental effects, next gen effects such as motion blur and depth of field and yes even better textures. Please tell me how Gears 2 is close from a technical standpoint? Gears 2 is a good looking game to this day but it does not hold a candle to UC2.
Gears 2 was cheaper to make bc engine was already in place so they only had to build levels etc thus it cost less. Crysis 2 will look 98% the same on both consoles so no it Crysis 2 will not blow any ps3 game out of the window but then again this is Pansola who thinks MW2 looks better than KZ2 and Uncharted 2[QUOTE="jyoung312"][QUOTE="SparkyProtocol"] I can already see Crysis 2 looking better on one console while RAGE looks better on the other. SparkyProtocol
That is not my point. Crytek and id are aiming to have the best looking games on consoles. (Crytek on consoles and PC)
If Crysis 2 looks slightly better on the 360 while RAGE looks slightly better on PS3 it would start another silly argument. I am just putting out a "what if" scenerio that would be typical for SW.
Chances are that wont happen anytime soon, unless third party devs truly learn how to use the PS3s hardware. There is no debate the PS3 is more powerful if used properly and the first party devs will always expolit it past the 3rd party devs. Even when Crysis 2 comes out you will see PS3 exclusives that look better then either console version.[QUOTE="caribo2222"]
Ok Hermits you wan't the facts lets get the facts-
1.The Ps3 is still more powerfull then most home users PC's
2.Most PC's can't run crysis at a level past Uncharted 2
3.Uncharted 2 is better graphics than what most pc's in the world can handle.
Uncharted 2 2009 best graphics award suck it hard.
HavocV3
The fact that a dual-core setup and a 2007 game can blow Uncharted out of the water, all there is to it.
2007 vs. 2009, PC, it only does everything: Crysis at 1600p 2 years before a game at 1080p tried to compare
Sorry but your wrong and i know your wrong because my pc from 2007 could barely handle crysis not on the max settings. It wasnt untill July of 2009 where I had a rig that ran it at the settings where it was meant to be played. And even then Uncharted 2 still has the best anmiations and enviormental effects in the business it holds up well with Crysis . Is it as technically impressive? No as its not on near the same scale but from a visual persepctive it holds its own fine.lol 800$ and you still cant max it?You are an idiot, i have an $800 pc that plays Crysis on all high with AA on 4x and AF on 16x, that's probably the exact same most people spend at best buy on their craptops. Pc gaming is cheaper if you factor in the other pc you don't have to buy.
bachilders
[QUOTE="Drakes_Fortune"]Judging from the demo, Gow3 isnt anywhere close to Uncharted 2 Graphics.Kingpin0114
I agree.
I would have to disagree , The GOW3 demo already looks far superior to antyhing else in that genre and serveral people have said the final version looks far superior to the demo.LOL because pc is a console? lmao learn to read. There obvisously saying that it couldnt be done on the 360.PC says "no".
Metalscarz
They actually are pretty powerful when it comes to games, most the parts are stripped out of them would only help them in non gameing applications. For an example if your console had to run multiple software programs and browse the internet it wouldnt do very well when compared to a modern pc.They aren't that powerful. There are a lot of components stripped from them to reduce costs and increase production yields.
Wasdie
Log in to comment