» Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:35 am
the original version of crysis 2 looks better than the original version of crysis, im sure when a mod like that is released for crysis 2 people will still complain
That's exactly what i find hysterical. When Crysis first came out... what was it that was littering every forum and review video you could hunt down? "This game runs like a**" or "Crysis is poorly coded which is causing it to run slow".... stuff like that. almost NOTHING about how good the graphics were.... and how insane it was to be able to shoot something at a mountain top MILES away and still see it move trees on said mountain top. People tried to say that games like UT3 looked better.... but it's just not the same. Yeah, UT3 has some nice graphics.... but it's also extremely localised. You can't see for miles in UT3.
Now that Crysis 2 is out.... people are complaining about the graphics being worse than Crysis's.... even though it's only on DX9..... and even though it's STILL practically the best looking DX9 game to date. I don't remember if it was this thread, or one of the other graphics complaint threads.... but someone mentioned "Copy & Pasted textures"... like using the same taxi over and over and everything. Yea... cause Crysis didn't have copy & pasted objects. The vast majority of the palm trees, which made up the majority of the Crysis environment, would be one of them. You also didn't really see that many different vehicles in Crysis.... for the few you actually DID see.
pretty sad that some crysis 1 fanboy can be wowed by nothing but a million tree leaves being rendered and some fog in the distance to make the place look atmospheric, crysis 1 graphics are a joke compared to crysis 2.
And yet another worthless console kiddie I can add to my ignore list. Go play Donkey Kong, kid. Its more at your level. Leave the Big Boys to their toys.
Venusian.... are you really that single-minded? Do you really only focus on the broad spectrum of a game or do you focus on the minor details. Would you rather have a game seem more atmospheric by being surrounded by tons of trees and a huge view distance that you barely ever got to take advantage of, or by having a more gripping story and excellent attention to detail in a cityscape? Do you need something to use the latest technology in order for it to have good graphics and recieve high praises? We've seen how that went for Crysis, being one of the first games with DX10 support. Nice graphics, but people were pissed because their top-o-the-line systems couldn't run it at even 30 fps average with everything maxed, all the AA they could choke down, and at the highest resolution they could possibly use. You know.... like you could do with damn near every game before it, and damn near every game since it's release?
Get your head out of the clouds and come back down to Earth. You'll notice the scenery is much better.