» Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:05 pm Seems like a purposeful way for EA to once again show favortism to PS3 by purposely leaving the 360 version gimped. It's not our fault Sony makes backwards ass hardware with lack of RAM and a GPU with half the features of the 360's but we're the ones paying for it and it's an easy way for EA to make the PS3 hardware seem better by intentionally screwing up and holding back the 360 version.
Not just the grain bugs and such, the entire game has an overall cheap look to it like all PS3 games with low res textures, lots of jaggies, flickering on all objects in the distance, lots of pop-in and grain to cover up all of this. And I've never seen a 360 grain with this awful type of shadows but plenty in all my time on PS3 since early 2007.
360 is capable of so much more than this game even when it isn't glitching up. Just look at Bioshock, Gears 1/2 and Farcry 2 and tell me the PS3 didn't hold this game back on all platforms then tell me EA and Crytek didn't intentionally put this or leave this grain bug in to save face on PS3 after all their talk over the years of all versions being identical and the "power of PS3" bull****. There's better looking games on 360 from 2007 and this game would look so much better if Crytek focused on 360 instead of what looks to be a PS3 port to 360 with all these issues that PS3 games usually have. When's the last time a 360 game ran at a low framerate like this? I'll wait because you can go through the entire library and you won't find one UNLESS it was ported from PS3 in which even then the 360 version turns out better 9 times out of 10.
How this conspriracy theory hasn't been put together yet makes me wonder if anyone else actually owns both consoles and really sees the difference in what they both do. Because if you did, you'd fully agree with me on this one. Especially after how bad the PS3 demo was and right away Crytek and EA both scrambled to save face on the situation. PS3 games usually look good when they're very scripted, linear and pushing you quickly past everything as to not give up it's smoke and mirrors tricks. This game doesn't do that and look how it turned out on both consoles. We got a port from PS3 ensuring the 360 RAM and graphics card were not utilised beyond what the PS3's more outdated graphics card and half the RAM could do.
Yet they've said nothing about how awful this problem is on 360 when they would be scrambling to remedy the situation if it were the PS3 version with the problem. See where I'm going with this?
Interesting theory. I don't know about EA and Crytek going out of there way to keep the 360 version gimped, personally I think it's just laziness and lack of testing like most games coming out lately, but who knows. On the other hand, EA has had a hard on for Sony for the last year or so. One thing's for sure about your post though, the 360 can do so much more than Crysis 2. Metro 2033 for example came out a year ago, looks and runs better than Crysis 2. Sure the "power of the cell" is good or whatever, but no 3rd party dev's want to touch it. Sony made a huge mistake using an outdated RAM and GPU and relying on the cell processors to pick up the slack. I originally was a PS3 only owner, but one day I decided to pick up a 360 so I could play the Mass Effect series. Since then my PS3 has mostly been collecting dust.
Bah anyway EA/Crytek really needs to at least acknowledge this issue and give us, even a loose, ETA on a patch.
