Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by eduardmc, Jan 21, 2009.
just wanna play this **** with a mouse and keyboard
I did'nt slap it in your face i was just putting up a link from a site saying the game has 300 light sources, doe's that meen im fragile easerly swayed NO, whatever version of light sources you like it did'nt warrent you acting like a prick, my post was'nt having ago at pc,s crysis or anything, i was under the impression you was letting off a bit, but if you was chilled when you wrote this, well your one sad son of a bitch, and i dont feel sorry for you, "question the "reality" presented to you" LMAO you ****-ing wanker.
Does this mean Killzone 2 is 87.5 X more fun than playing Simon?
hmmm ..... there is no doubt that Crysis is most advanced game but it can also be called as benchmarking tool to test graphics performance on PC :3eyes: I mean its great to look at but that game eats the PC. Also I do not know how they were doing testing as when the game was in development Geforce 6 was the best card. They should have know or had good idea that geforce 6 will struggle to run this game on medium setting at a decent resolution.. the game was meant for future hardware and PC and that makes PC gamers proud
KZ2 and what the devs said about so many hundred lights is just not marketing tactics. They are saying the game and the engine does so many things and they want to let us know about it .... so what's wrong ? :nerd:
No, all it means is that:
Nice miss quote, I said with all of the mods you can have endless fun. I don't even have crysis installed because none of the mods I want for it are out yet.
So in short words, what you guys are saying, I am a "wanker", and Kill zone 2 uses 100 x the light source of other games, but still do not manage to outshine todays most intense graphical titles ?
And BTW, I think Crysis is a nice game, but certainly not the best out there. What is the big deal with Crysis anyway, besides it has been used in more sentences that you could count, on this forum alone.
If it really was such bad game like some of you try to tell us, then why in the nine hells do you have this weird urge of comparing games like Killzone 2 to Crysis in the first place ?
Remember this, a console nut started this. Using a CG video to promote Killzone 2 VS Crysis. So when people try to reason the game just might be another FPS, others from the Sony console Nazi parade firmly put out links to "let us all hype our selfs to the roof about this game" sites. Crysis had a decent amount of hype and misleading info around it too. But let us see if Killzone 2 graphics will be used in as many conversations and comparisons as Crysis over a year after it has been released.
No I can tell you it will suffer the fate like all other "ohhh will be the best game ever" games, usually forgotten in a month or so, hardly to ever be spoken about again.
No just me, i said that no one else.
Who's telling you its a bad game.?, and where are these weird urge's your talking about, the guy started a thread about Killzone 2 vs pc graphics, not crysis?
Dont call people Nazi's who like this game, i played the demo and i liked it, "But let us see if Killzone 2 graphics will be used in as many conversations and comparisons as Crysis over a year after it has been released." maybe it wont because no one will be benchmarking it.
Maybe but why the hate.
Quote of the multi quote from boodikon for the sake of G3D precious storage space, since I will respond with a double critical wall of text in a futile attempt to bring down the server, so I might escape this mud hole of a topic.
Let us forget a bout the wanker part. Obvious there seem to be some odd connection with the releases of anticipated console titles. And the mighty console armada coming into the PC forum like the ducks gather to fly south in the winter. An unexplainable urge to brag, compare and feed us with utter marketing bull. Their target is Crysis, that is just how things have been ever since the damn game came out....
About Crysis being a bad game:
--MMmmm yes, but at least you can play it straight away, rather than waiting years for hardware to catch up to be able to enjoy it, and even then, the storyline is rather dull.
Not everybody is into pixel peeping the textures, I don't notice it when playing games, especially with things constantly exploding around me, amazing atmosphere, which is incredibly involving.
Maybe uncharted 2 will compare better to Crysis, it will have more "foliage" to drool over --
Hmm, maybe every gamer does not have to play games running on a straight line, with the story being the only thing to care about. Maybe some people appreciate the simple things of life. Like ambushing a Korean patrol with a landslide of items, including the kitchen sink. Or maybe ram the gasoline station in one of their based with a truck, loaded with explosive barrels. Not because you have a story telling you to do so, but because you have the freedom to do so ....
That what saves the day in Crysis for me, not the retarded story.
--think killzone 2 is showing what can be done if you fully optimize the hardware in front of you and imo it looks great, the scale, physics, sound, atmosphere "it really feels like your in a war", also for a console game it has 350 light sorces in one area, and for a console game i think its impressive.--
Me thinks. Urge to compare, and to spread propaganda how amazing the PS3 is.. yet, like others here, some seem to think, there is not really anything amazing about Killzone 2 at all. It is just another average shooter, which there seems to be plenty of these days. So it is really a matter of personal preference. There is hardly any point trying to tell me that the game utilizes 350 light sources. I have a pretty good idea how and why they came up with that number...
The mighty Cell, 4 times more powerfully than any CPU, this time only using 78.4 % of it untapped power, now gives you this amazing game.
Has about the same ring in my ears as the: INCREDIBLE 350 light sources in 1 scene of the game.
Those things are not what makes a game stick for a long time. That only help them sell them in large quantities for a short period of time. It is called marketing bull. Not that it make the game bad in any way, but for me, it is something I just can not ignore. I quite frankly hate that. Not that the PC side do not have a fair share of it too, but I think consoles in the last years have taken it to level that is, yeah I would say it is straight out insulting people.
I like PC games, you like PS3 games, they are different, comparing them are useless for so many reasons. Each game to their own usually focus on something unique. We should be happy there is a difference and there is a choice, because that might change in the future.
Of course. Sooner or later some people always have to start insulting each other. You two: stop using this kind of language in here!
Sounds a lot better already. Thanks!
What kind of language ? German ?
No seriously, I had had a bad feeling this was my fault things were getting a bit out of hand, I know have a "slight" issue with triggering peoples feelings. So I decided to try row the boat gently away from the storm back to the shore.....
On other hand, if a game sells 3 million copies, it is automatically considered a epic success. However the average person spends only 20 hours or less on the game, is that a success for the publisher of that game, or for the end user ?
Contra a game that sells only a few hundred thousand copies, and people spend several 100 hours at an average on it. For some, the meaning of a successful game has to be put in a different context than they are today.
I think it is worth considering at least a thought, what direction the gaming industry sway us, what the hype and enormous marketing powers are doing to us, and what choices we make.
Great point, I could care less if KZ2 sells millions or thousands. My thing now is what are they giving to progressing the art of game design. Like for instance when RBSV came out it blew me away with a working and logical cover system, no more bunny hopping behind freaking crates! Yet I still don't see this as a standard, it is all about how good a game looks over how well the game is now a days. I have been gaming since 1987 when I was about 5. I didn't get my first NES until I was ten. The games back then felt a lot more fun then what we have now. KZ2 will be cool no doubt but I lack to see what it has that is different from 99% of the other fps out on the market. We are now shelling out an ungodly amount for games that only gives us a few hours of enjoyment and yet costs threw the roof to make. I love the graphic fidelity of today, and would love to see it stay here and the next gen be about scope and gameplay.
LMAO! True so True!
Anyone can quote how thay like, now your saying how people should respond in forums.?.
Whos bragging ?, and i will say again read the thread title, and "things ?" have not been like "that" since Crysis came out.? wtf
Your saying its a bad game ffs, who else is.
Propaganda, calling people nazi's, the console armada, give it a rest. Your saying its another average shooter, ok when you played the demo did you not like it or did you play the full game, or are you still talking BS.
Get over it, you keep harping on about that link i posted about killzone 2 using 350 light sources, who cares what type of lights thay are, calling it propaganda ?, your the one still going on about it.
"I like PC games, you like PS3 games" are you refering to me because it does'nt matter to me if i enjoy games on my pc, PS3, or Nintendo DS, you should enjoy a game on whatever format because being a pc fanboy or console fanboy is sad, people compare multiformat games all the time and its not useless, usually discussions about graphics on different formats go along ok, but when people like you start throwing insults around then the thread go's off topic and get's out of hand.
I mean guys , sometimes when I see you say , stuff like we cant compare games like Crysis to Killzone 2 , I'm like yeah that's true but then I'm like wait a minute , why cant we..lol
What forbids it from being compared..
The fact the we had so many comparing COD4 to Crysis inturms of which being a better fps , surly COD4 tends to get a little inflated votes every now and then but it never stopped two different Games from being compared to one another despite meaning two different styles of games..
Yeah but the argument would most defiantly be futile in any case..
Crysis does actually beat lots of titles in many areas including Graphics..
I'll tell you this that Graphics aren't the only highlights of Crysis , it's alot more then just graphics and for all those who see it as an ordinary title , I believe haven't played the game on a proper system , there's a certain way the game's meant to be experienced !
But why stop from clearing out details , it would be better to distinguish between such titles with proper detail rather then calling people ignorant , stupid...
As for my personal opinion , I believe COD4 sucked just as much as Killzone 2 does infront of Crysis , infact I clearly believe Killzone 2 deserves alot more respect over COD4 !
I agree that I find there is more to Crysis than just the graphics...all the moaning on this forum put me off, but I enjoyed it when I finally got around to playing it.
But in terms of CoD4, I disagree. CoD4 was a huge, multi-platform success with one of the more involving stories I've ever played in the genre; I know plenty of people who got into FPS games because of CoD4 who weren't really gamers before.
Please dont get me wrong with that , I think COD4 was one of the best COD titles ever made to date , it's just that I mostly see it as a revolutionary episode to the series but not entirly as something that re-writes the whole FPS scene ,
More like how Resident Evil 4 tried to re-write the series.
Not entirely a generational leap like Crysis was with it's design , I suppose many dont see Crysis as a generational leap but frankly I do..
With COD it all started from Medal of Honour , let alone COD 1 , 2 , 3 etc..
If I'm not mistaken , it took Far Cry and after that Crysis exploded..lol
Surly we cant compare Crysis's multiplayer mode to COD4's , surly COD4 does impressively in that aspect but with deffence those guys have had many more chances to work it through and above all they've been nailing it well enough from the start..
I've always enjoyed the COD series and factually it was a major success , COD4's online play being it's biggest highlight , I persoanlly have it on the Xbox 360 , PC , PS3 , I'm a tad bit shy from being a fan !
I have to point out , just like Halo 3 on the Xbox 360 for it's online play , I see Killzone 2 following in the same pattern or maybe it's advertisements that's alluded me to see it so..
What I originally meant to say was , simply putting things in a slangish way of saying (COD4) fits how a previous Gen title should have always been like.
Since it is something that could have been pulled off earlier , while I see Killzone 2 being a mixture of both in some ways (middle) and Crysis as the eXtreme/true Next Gen..
I dont know how to put it but I hope you get what I'm trying to say..
well killzone 2 is not even near to crysis graphics