BladesOfAthena's forum posts
[QUOTE="Gamertag-TFTW"]Like what other companies are getting? Besides, Nintendo has enough money to last them a while. All of that money and yet they can't even afford an online infrastructure that's as good as Microsoft's, or Sony's for that matter.Nintendo's gravy train is coming to an end as noted by their first annual loss since 1981.
nintendoboy16
I pointed out how Wii (and Gamecube) managed to produce some nice looking games, that side by side, looked as good or better in the final overall result, then games on other more powerful hardware.....gamerdude375If we're talking rushed ports and half-assed games on the HD twins, yeah I suppose. Against the very best? Not by a longshot.
[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]
1)It;s a GTX 570. Made by EVGA.
2) I can max out everything else at 60 FPS at 1080p. Including Witcher 2. Except for Crysis, because it's an unoptimized pos.
3) Nice try.
gamerdude375
Then there is something wrong with your GPU or System...or how you acquired your game...since all benchmarks indicate a GTX 570 easily achieving beyond 30fps on Crysis at 1080p with High Settings & AA enabled.
By your logic, GTA4 and Just Cause 2 are the best looking games out there because they are 100X bigger than the big open enviornments of Crysis.
Having big open enviornments dont mean jack s*** if the game looks mediocre 50% of the time. Killzone and Uncharted destroy Crysis in terms of lighting, animation, detail and character polygons. Who cares if Crysis has semi open world enviornments?
S0lidSnake
You're kidding yourself if you think Killzone 2 or 3 outdoes Crysis maxed out.....especially in the areas of lighting and detail.
....and going back to Rage, that game had some of the poorest graphics and most horrendous texture pop in I've seen....you're out of your mind for even suggesting it's better the Crysis graphically. Then again, that's to be expected from one claiming that Killzone 2 and 3 have better lighting and detail.
Yes, and Super Mario Galaxy has some of the most dreadful dithering, ugly-ass aliasing, low-res PS2-like textures and lamest shadows I have EVER seen. I don't get how when it comes to comparing the Wii vs PS3/360 graphics-wise, you boil it down into visual appeal (which is purely SUBJECTIVE) just so it would seem more favorable on the Wii's terms, yet when you pair up the PS3/360 against the PC, all of a sudden it becomes an argument of technical wizardry. Why don't you apply the same standard with the PS3/X360 when it comes to comparing against the PC? :rolleyes:[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]Considering Nintendo and their NES revolutionized videogames as a whole and Microsoft and Xbox Live revolutionized modern console gaming with a comprehensive online platform, I'm sort of at a loss as to how you can attribute godfatherhood to Sony. Besides being better at the console game than Sega, what claim do they have? Being able to reach out to a more mature audience, that gaming is no longer for 10 year old boys. I mean,150 million consoles is nothing to scoff at.My statement is based upon the fact that Sony dominated a 12 year period where they could do no wrong. Nintendo was (third party support still is) on it's heels and they forced Sega out of business entirely. Sounds pretty godfather like to me!
El_Zo1212o
Log in to comment