Crysis 2

[just a noob]

I really disagree there.

I agree, see pokemon, mario brothers, starcraft, they all have terrible graphics by today's means, but they are way better than most of the crap that gets put out today

 

[Ryeong]

what about FF13 though? That looks amazing right now, and it looks better than FF7, so how does that work?

I am only asking because no game reviewer on the planet works like you are saying and I think there is a damn good reason for that...

FF 13 has the best graphics of the final fantasy series so far. But, this is now. you can't compare a game from the 90's to a game from 2010.. that's not right.

FF 7 was top-notch then, and if it was to be reviewed now then the person who reviews must go back and gain knowledge of how the other games was doing at that time. Of course, that's only if it's going to be an objective review (aka good) ..

 

[Aastii]

FF 13 has the best graphics of the final fantasy series so far. But, this is now. you can't compare a game from the 90's to a game from 2010.. that's not right.

FF 7 was top-notch then, and if it was to be reviewed now then the person who reviews must go back and gain knowledge of how the other games was doing at that time. Of course, that's only if it's going to be an objective review (aka good) ..

FF13 has good graphics now though I mean. And ofcourse you can compare:

both are of the Final Fantasy franchise
both are RPG games
both are JRPGs

both are very similar in many ways, ofcourse they can be compared. Saying they can't is like saying you can't compare half life 1 to half life 2 and all of the episodes. HL1 came out in the 90s (1998), episode 2 came out in in 2007, they can be compared beacuse they are both fps games, they are both of the same franchise, they both follow similar patterns. HL1 doesn't look as good though, does that make it worse?

Crysis was released in 2007, when Crysis 2 comes out, can they be compared? I can understand not being able to compare an rts game to an rpg game to an fps game to a puzzle game, but not what you are saying. Do you even know what you are on about?

 

[Ryeong]

FF13 has good graphics now though I mean. And ofcourse you can compare:

both are of the Final Fantasy franchise
both are RPG games
both are JRPGs

both are very similar in many ways, ofcourse they can be compared. Saying they can't is like saying you can't compare half life 1 to half life 2 and all of the episodes. HL1 came out in the 90s (1998), episode 2 came out in in 2007, they can be compared beacuse they are both fps games, they are both of the same franchise, they both follow similar patterns. HL1 doesn't look as good though, does that make it worse?

Crysis was released in 2007, when Crysis 2 comes out, can they be compared? I can understand not being able to compare an rts game to an rpg game to an fps game to a puzzle game, but not what you are saying. Do you even know what you are on about?

You can compare the story.. but it will be wrong to compare the graphics.. especially considering the fact that crysis 1 is DX9 and DX10 whilst Crysis 2 will be DX10 and DX11 with tesselation. also, it's up to date. pretty unfair.

Sure you can compare and say how much better crysis 2 are. but you can't really make those two figh eachother.. that would just be wrong.. very wrong.. .. .. (V)(o.o)(V)

 

[Aastii]

You can compare the story.. but it will be wrong to compare the graphics.. especially considering the fact that crysis 1 is DX9 and DX10 whilst Crysis 2 will be DX10 and DX11 with tesselation. also, it's up to date. pretty unfair.

Sure you can compare and say how much better crysis 2 are. but you can't really make those two figh eachother.. that would just be wrong.. very wrong.. .. .. (V)(o.o)(V)

You can compare the story
You can compare the sounds
within sounds you can compare:
gunfire
environment
vehicles
characters
voice acting
explosions
many more...
You can compare the AI
You can compare the gameplay
Within gameplay you can compare:
the aiming and weapons
the immersion
the replayability
the "realism" of it (obviously it is aliens and you are in a super suit, but I assume you know what I mean by that)
You can compare how the graphics have developed, if it at all
You can compare the engines to each other
You can compare characters
You can compare physics
You can compare lighting
You can compare atmosphere
The list can very easily go on and on and on

You can't compare:
graphics directly

That is more than enough weight to be able to compare the 2 games and any other 2 games in the same regardless of age or looks. Yea, you can compare graphics, say one has better than the other, one is different to the other, but look at what you would be ignoring if you JUST focused on graphics

 

[Ryeong]

You can compare the story
You can compare the sounds
You can compare the AI
You can compare the gameplay
Within gameplay you can compare:
the aiming and weapons
the immersion
the replayability
the "realism" of it (obviously it is aliens and you are in a super suit, but I assume you know what I mean by that)
You can compare how the graphics have developed, if it at all
You can compare the engines to each other
You can compare characters
You can compare physics
You can compare lighting
You can compare atmosphere
The list can very easily go on and on and on

You can't compare:
graphics directly

That is more than enough weight to be able to compare the 2 games and any other 2 games in the same regardless of age or looks. Yea, you can compare graphics, say one has better than the other, one is different to the other, [1]but look at what you would be ignoring if you JUST focused on graphics

[1] i mentioned that earlier in this thread..

It just doesn't justify anything. you already know that Crysis 2 will look better than crysis 1 becouse crysis 1 is 07 and crysis 2 is 2010.. jupp..

You can compare GTX 260 with GTX 285.. but hey, it's kinda expected that 285 will be better.. It's just not right.. It's better to compare XFX 285 with Gainward 285 or something..

Sure, you can compare anything. But it wont justify anything if it's older.. Objectivity is all about justice both ways.. whats the most fair solution to compare?..

I'll go and get drunk or something..

 

[Aastii]

the gtx400 series cards are coming out very very soon.

You can compare them to the 200 series cards, because you can compare performance difference, price/performance ratio from when the 200 were first released, taking inflation into account, power consumption, how they handle modern games compared to how 200 series handled modern games of the time. Hell, you can compare the 400 series cards to the 8000 series and how the 8000 handled being the first dx10 cards, and how the 400 series compares being the first DX11 cards. Just bceause you can't do raw speed doesn't mean you can't do other things. Qualitative results are just as worthy of being taken into account and quaantitative, even if you can't put exact figures to it

Every game is different, yes, that doesn't mean you can't compare, otherwise every game would be the best game ever made, every game would also simultaneously be the worst game ever made, no game would have a genre, developers would not be able to take possitive and negative points from games to further develop the games and optomize them and make them funner and more revolutionary (which doesn't happen )

 

[PabloTeK]

[1]It just doesn't justify anything. you already know that Crysis 2 will look better than crysis 1 becouse crysis 1 is 07 and crysis 2 is 2010.. jupp..

Defien looking better; I think that games pallettes should be made of colours that would make a hippie van look understated. Modern games are getting closer to being grey and brown.

In any case, graphics and DX whatever shouldn't matter because when a dev team focuses on those the gameplay, story etc really suffer. Crysis was lovely to look at (apparently) but the gameplay and story could easily be from Halo and it wouldn't make a fat bit of difference.

More games like Saints Row 2, GTA VC, Portal et al please. Crysis 2 will still have a horrid story line I can pretty much guarantee.

 

[Ryeong]

the gtx400 series cards are coming out very very soon.

You can compare them to the 200 series cards, because you can compare performance difference, price/performance ratio from when the 200 were first released, taking inflation into account, power consumption, how they handle modern games compared to how 200 series handled modern games of the time. Hell, you can compare the 400 series cards to the 8000 series and how the 8000 handled being the first dx10 cards, and how the 400 series compares being the first DX11 cards. Just bceause you can't do raw speed doesn't mean you can't do other things. Qualitative results are just as worthy of being taken into account and quaantitative, even if you can't put exact figures to it

Every game is different, yes, that doesn't mean you can't compare, otherwise every game would be the best game ever made, every game would also simultaneously be the worst game ever made, no game would have a genre, developers would not be able to take possitive and negative points from games to further develop the games and optomize them and make them funner and more revolutionary (which doesn't happen )

That's right.. you can compare my shades to Horatio Caine's shades from CSI Miami..

 

[Archangel]

Yea, you do.. but objectivity does not.

If we was to be objective we would need to weight all those parts togheter and form a total judgement.

Graphics
Story
Gameplay
Sound/musc

etc..etc.. If one of those parts are much weaker than the other, then those parts will simply drag down the entire structure..

Think of Mozart.. He believed that if one single note in the entire play was weaker (misplaced/wrong/weaker) than the other, then it would destroy the structure.

I agree to a certain point. I mean, whats the definition of good and bad,
where do you draw the line?
Music for exam0ple is really underrated in games imo.
take the original Halo on the xbox for example. the game was pretty good. gameplay was fun, enemies were (relative) smart, and the grafics were amazing for then. but its the music that really gave it the epic feel at some points.
But even without the music, it would've been a good game, because it was/is fun to play. it would jsut have been less good.

 

[Ryeong]

I agree to a certain point. I mean, whats the definition of good and bad,
where do you draw the line?
Music for exam0ple is really underrated in games imo.
take the original Halo on the xbox for example. the game was pretty good. gameplay was fun, enemies were (relative) smart, and the grafics were amazing for then. but its the music that really gave it the epic feel at some points.
But even without the music, it would've been a good game, because it was/is fun to play. it would jsut have been less good.

100% totally agree'd. A game that dedicates much work on the background music etc is the silent hill series with the composer Akira Yamaoka..

 

[lubo4444]

When is Crysis 2 coming out?

 

[ganzey]

When is Crysis 2 coming out?

december 2010.

this thread has gotten REALLY OT

 

[ScottALot]

As for Halo reach, after Halo 2 I can't say I like the Halo franchise, just the same stuff but reskinned. Hell they even tried to go off the track making an rts and look how well (or not I should say) that went

Jetpacks? Doesn't seem reskinned to me

 

[BigSteve702]

nice



You insulted me before i insulted you, that's a fact. Oh, and that makes it one member. I sincerely apologize if i have insulted anyone else than you, thus so far i can't remember anyone else than you.. Maybe because i just came home after 32 hours without sleep?.. A real gamer cares for graphics, therefore a higher than high-end system is often required in the newer games (exeption of older. you know what i'm talking about.)

Or we can split games into some more parts..

Casual gamer (Just for "fun")
hardcore gamer (spending cash on hardware to play new games)
Enthusiastic gamer (Spends thousands of dollars every year to maintain the possibility to max out games in 1080p or beyond)

(look how nicely those words increase compared to eachother ..)

NO NO NO!
a REAL gamer cares about playing games. if all you care about is maxing the GRAPHICS in games, then you are called a real POSER


its like people who have a lifted truck, and all these motorsports stickers... but they dont go out and have fun in the desert/mud/ go to motocross races. they have the equipment, but only care about how it looks. its called being a poser.

 

[Dystopia]

Leave him alone, he clearly puts graphics in front of everything, there are hundrerds people like that. However, he shouldn't be calling himself a gamer. Gamers are people who play games because they are fun, some do it for money. Counter Strike is still one of the most played game online and there are hundreds of tournaments.

Well said, although some people just play for graphics.

NO NO NO!
a REAL gamer cares about playing games. if all you care about is maxing the GRAPHICS in games, then you are called a real POSER


its like people who have a lifted truck, and all these motorsports stickers... but they dont go out and have fun in the desert/mud/ go to motocross races. they have the equipment, but only care about how it looks. its called being a poser.

:good:

Lets try to get this back to Crysis 2, ok? If you wish to keep debating what makes a game good/bad, take it to PM/IM/VM. Thanks

 

[linkin]

Well let's face it, Far Cry, Far Cry 2, Crysis and Crysis warhead have all been about GRAPHICS over gameplay, but they do have above average stories as well, and you need a good mixture of both to have a good game.

Can't forget physics and sound too, they are important. and last but not least, enemy or friendly AI.

I can't count how many times i've bun run over by my own team in ArmA II by a friendly tank...

 

[Ryeong]

NO NO NO!
a REAL gamer cares about playing games. if all you care about is maxing the GRAPHICS in games, then you are called a real POSER


its like people who have a lifted truck, and all these motorsports stickers... but they dont go out and have fun in the desert/mud/ go to motocross races. they have the equipment, but only care about how it looks. its called being a poser.

That, or being jealous? Because i get a certain feeling when watching over a beautiful environment in the middle of the night when i'm tired and want to chill etc.. Does that make me a poser? .. I worthship complexity!

Well let's face it, Far Cry, Far Cry 2, Crysis and Crysis warhead have all been about GRAPHICS over gameplay, but they do have above average stories as well, and you need a good mixture of both to have a good game.

Can't forget physics and sound too, they are important. and last but not least, enemy or friendly AI.

I can't count how many times i've bun run over by my own team in ArmA II by a friendly tank...

Ah, lol! xD

 

[f.i.t.h]

CS was and is so bad i don't even want to discuss it... TF2, oh no.. no no no.. that cartoony thing lol.. No ty! CS was something back in its days.. but, err. no ty.. no.. i.. I keep vomiting when i hear that people play that game, becouse it's not.. yea, its not..

... Wait what?

And how can you say CS is bad, sure, it lacks insane visuals (1.6 is 10 years old ffs), and accurately modeled sound, but it has GAMEPLAY, which, to many of us is the most important part of the game.

 

[PabloTeK]

Lets look at some games that were generally accepted to be good:

Any OLD adventure game by Lucasarts (i.e. Grim Fandango);
Call of Duty 4 - not the best graphics of the time but still one of my favourite games;
Goldeneye for the N64;
Zelda;
Final Fantasy VII;
Portal;

None of these have/had top of the line graphics but were all very good fun!