I'm posting to talk about the graphics of this game. I have no problem believing that on a powerful PC this is probably the best looking game of all time, but on consoles I don't understand where people get off saying it's the greatest looking console game ever. I've read that statement at many different sites and even on the box for the game it says, "Best looking console game ever."
Sidenote about me is that the first game that blew my brains against the wall (graphically speaking) was Riddick for the old box. That game needs to be mandatory playing (like mandatory reading at school) for any gamer. It's just that awesome.
In a very unbiased non-PS3 Fanboy statement I can easily come up with 3 games that all look better on a console than Crysis 2: Killzone 2 (haven't played 3 yet), God of War 3 and Uncharted 2. Don't get me wrong the game is gorgeous and definitely looks best in outdoor environments and it looks better than any 360 game I've seen.
Maybe reviewers forgot about those PS3 exclusives?
Also, the game sports a lot of light and a ton of color in much larger environments than any modern shooter I can even think of. No doubt the engine has to work a lot harder than in Killzone, CoD or Gear of War 2.
Talking with Salad yesterday before I had even played the game I was shocked to see that IGN had called the game the best looking console game they'd ever seen and still only rated the graphics a 9.5.
Let me put this in perspective and run down some other blockbuster game graphics ratings from IGN:
Gears of War 2: 9.5
Halo Reach: 9.5
God of War 3: 9.5
Modern Warfare 2: 10
Uncharted 2: 10
It just seems contradictory to say that a game is the best looking game on any console and not give it a 10.
Salad and I agree that it shows a flaw in the number ranking system and think that the "Like" "Dislike" is the superior method.
The only problem with that is that a quick glance at a number rating does give the reader a good impression of what the reviewer thought of the game without having to read the whole review.
What say you? Numbers good? Numbers bad? Maybe we should implement a sticker program with golden stars or smiley faces? Maybe we should take the games code and mark the hell out of it with a red felt tip marker like our teachers did to us in school?
I guess I just got annoyed that the game promised to blow my mind visually (and the reviewers were calling it the best looking game ever and perpetuating the problem!) and while many times I find myself saying "wow" and slowly gaze around at the destruction of New York I can't help but be a little let down.
I say numbers are no good. You say that the number gives a quick impression without having to read the whole article and that's the problem. If you're on the fence about a game, you shouldn't just look at a number that someone assigned a game. The review should be compelling and thorough enough that by reading it you get a very clear understanding of whether you should make your purchase or not.
ReplyDeleteNumbers are also tricky because industry standards change. I would hope that a game released in 2011 would look markedly better than one released in 2005. Yet they might still get the same number assigned to their "Visuals."
One more problem with numbers comes when you're dealing with sequels. I'll use the examples of Halo 3 and Halo Reach. Halo Reach is obviously a huge step up visually from Halo 3, but it still doesn't measure up graphically to games like Crysis 2 or Killzone 3. So if you assign Reach a 9.5 for graphics, is that measured against Halo 3, or the whole industry, or just other games on that particular console, or what?
Finally, one more problem with the numbers is the fanboy rage that stems from it. I'm not referring to this post at all, but more in message boards of game reviews on bigger websites like IGN and GameTrailers. And to their credit, the fanboys are right. The numbers just make no sense too much of the time.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOh, I forgot....
ReplyDelete"Don't get me wrong the game is gorgeous and definitely looks best in outdoor environments and it looks better than any 360 game I've seen."
But it's on the 360 and that one supposedly is graphically superior (according to many). You, 3N3MY, and many others have claimed that the PS3 is way more powerful and that it can do things the 360 wouldn't have a chance at, etc. Does the existence of a "better" version of Crysis 2 on the 360 sway your opinion on that at all?
I guess it's all just in people's opinions. You say you don't think it looks as good as Killzone 2 or God of War 3, but the IGN guy (in his review of the 360 version) said it's the best-looking console game EVER, without qualifying it at all.
And just for the record, I can agree with you right now, not having played Crysis 2 yet, that Killzone 2 and maybe 3 are the best looking console games I've played yet.
The existence of a better looking 360 copy of the game does not change my opinion that the PS3 is a superior system, graphically speaking.
ReplyDeleteHaving gotten all achievements AND trophies from Assassin's Creed 2 I can tell you that the 360 version is vastly superior. The PS3 has loads of pop ins and poor textures.
It's a bummer for sure that the port was done so poorly. Ubisoft promised with Brotherhood that there would be no differences between 360 and PS3, but I haven't played that game on either system so I cannot say.
Bottom line is that the PS3 is a pain in the ass to develop for and when you do business you put your effort and time into where you're going to make your most money with the least effort. The simplicity of making games between 360 and PC lets developers optimize development on those versions, but the PS3 has to have all kinds of special considerations to get the same result.
I read that with Crysis 2 the way their engine works and the way it was built for PC and 360 didn't allow them to fully utilize the cell processor and maybe that's true, but from what I've read over and over is that the differences between the 360 and PS3 versions are not great. Mostly the differences are in jaggies and lighting, but not much else.
I still stand by my statement that if a game is built from the ground up to utilize the PS3's power the 360 can't touch it.
It's not like the 360 doesn't have big exclusives to show the muscle it has too. Gears of War and Reach are both phenomenal looking games, but still don't touch Killzone or UC.
If any game comes out on the 360 that looks as good as God of War 3 or Killzone....I'll eat my GameCube.
Note: This wasn't meant to turn into a PS3 fanboy rant, but with the questions you asked I felt it necessary to talk about things the way I did.
Also, I know it's silly to think that graphics are everything, but if you think a game that looks like Killzone is not granted much more immersion than Goldeneye or Wii's The Conduit then you need your head examined.
ReplyDeleteLastly, i saw gameplay footage session of id's Rage on PS3 and I feel comfortable saying that that's the best looking console game I've ever seen.
I think I've read that the PS3 version of AC: Brotherhood is best.
ReplyDeleteGraphics vs. Gameplay is an entirely different topic that probably deserves a different post: Would you rather have a great-looking game with sub-par controls or an OK-looking game with excellent controls? Again, Killzone 2 is a great example. As awesome as it looks, the sluggish controls in the game really limited my enjoyment.
Sorry, just realized your question more thoroughly.
ReplyDeleteI do think that Crysis 2 is the best looking game on the 360.
Also, Killzone 2 did feel like a dog at times to play because of the "weight" of the whole game, but it didn't ruin it for me. Riddick and The Darkness feel very similar.
I'd like to see people back up their arguments with technological data. Typically, whatever console came out last is the one that has the most technology in it (ignore the Wii for a second). If I spend the same amount of money on a gaming PC today as opposed to Novemember when I bought mine, I'll get a better PC with more power for the same amount of money.
ReplyDeleteI would guess that the PS3 has more power inside of it and can handle better graphics.
Anyways, I'll have to buy Crysis 2 and play it maxed out on my rig and show all ya'll up! :D
3N3MY, yes we know that graphics aren't everything about a game, but come on... this is Crysis. This game was meant to be gone over with a microscope to find even the smallest flaw. Not to mention, the fact that they even attempted a console version says they knew this criticism would occur. It's sad to say, but graphics are going to be the main reason people pick this game up.
ReplyDeleteAs you and I talked about today, and going along with what you brushed on earlier, I think the main reason we see all these graphical differences is because for a game to run its best on the PS3, it must be made for and developed solely on the PS3. Any port from any other system or PC will cause the problems we see game after game.
I know I will hear some crap for this, but I think that Gears of War 3 has the potential to be one of the better games we have seen on a console yet. Why? Well, we have seen what the Unreal Engine can do so far, and I think this new version will push it further than we've ever seen. Just hope it isn't so far that it effs up MP - another topic for another post.
Well, hopefully Sony has learned a lesson with the PS3 and their next console won't be such a mystery for developers. I doubt they have, though, as they have a tendency to always want to do their own thing with proprietary formats, etc.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, nobody else has talked about the game reviews and scores issue. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Yeah, the numbers system is weak. Sometimes I'll check out a quick number here and there to see what people think of a game but the likes/dislikes system is superior. Someone might be able to look at the dislikes in a review and say "those don't seem to bad" and go buy the game and like it whereas if they saw a review for the same game with a score of 6 out of 10, they might pass the game up.
ReplyDeleteAnd opinions can always change so what you think is a 10 game today might change in five years. If you gave Doom 3 a 10 on graphics when it came out, today the score would be much lower.
I don't think it's fair to rank a system's potential on one game - for the game or the system. To compare Crysis against itself as it runs on different platforms is like comparing a book read in different light, or on a nook. The system comparison is an even tougher one, but more because of the fanboyism it ignites. I think the Kinect has more potential as a product (head over to KinectHacks if you haven't already... holy cow.) but I don't think that means it's better, especially in light of all the "games" that have come out for it. I'd hate to see Sony's powerhouse fall short of it's potential due to some technical data we find with Crysis, which is apparently the benchmark to which all games are compared graphically.
ReplyDeleteWhat matters to me is if it runs smoothly and supports the visuals of the final product. It could run off the Mario 64 engine for all I care - if it works with the final product, let it happen.