This topic is locked from further discussion.
This award is a real sore-spot for some people... btw, would those of you who have Crysis/Warhead say that Warhead is worse, better than, or pretty much the same graphically-speaking as the first Crysis?67gt500It's better than the original Crysis because it's more refined. Crytek has optimized the engine to a degree that more people can experience better graphics with lesser hardware. It is a sore spot. The PC community on Gamespot constantly feels like the red headed step child of this gaming site because reviews are often weeks late, If they are a multi platform release the only nod the PC version gets is the mandatory "This game looks better on PC" blurb and then a game that looks better than another loses out to it in a category that is in no way subjective. At this point I believe that if Gamespot had a "Most Expensive Game to Buy in the Store catagory" and listed The collector's Editions of GTA IV, Fallout 3, Gears of War 2 and Metal Gear Solid 4 Metal Gear Solid 4 would have one
I really hate talking like this, but I am really beginning to doubt Gamespots judgement, this issue doesn't at all keep me awake at night, but its very hard to believe that they would compare Crysis to Metal Gear, both games are great, but on the technical side, Crysis wins by a landslide, almost to the point of which its way to unfair, however this is just one person's opinion, doesn't make much of a difference.
**BTW**
Crysis Warhead Engine Optimizations aren't the best, they run very well on lesser hardware, but its difficult for the more powerful cards on gamer or enthusiats levels, (I have a GTX 260, couldn't achieve anything over 10 frames, but it might be my processor... I will upgrade during the summer.).
I think, from their point of view, MGS4 was more impressive given the limitations of consoles. With PC games you can scale the game upwards to make it look better on hardware that won't even be sold for another year or two. With consoles, you're limited to their specifications, so getting more out of the graphics takes more work and are more impressive because of the difficulties.
That said, I'd probably still have to give the nod to Crysis.
I think, from their point of view, MGS4 was more impressive given the limitations of consoles. With PC games you can scale the game upwards to make it look better on hardware that won't even be sold for another year or two. With consoles, you're limited to their specifications, so getting more out of the graphics takes more work and are more impressive because of the difficulties.argianasIf that were the case I don't see why they would even nominate a PC game since they knew they were going to go on a technicality and give it to a console game.
But the award isn't "Most Technically Impressive Game in Relation to the Hardware That It's Running On." This whole "awards" thing is more or less a marketer's dreamland, anyway. Well, that and fuel for heated forum discussions.I think, from their point of view, MGS4 was more impressive given the limitations of consoles. With PC games you can scale the game upwards to make it look better on hardware that won't even be sold for another year or two. With consoles, you're limited to their specifications, so getting more out of the graphics takes more work and are more impressive because of the difficulties.
That said, I'd probably still have to give the nod to Crysis.
argianas
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment