Find me a console game with a better texture then this one on PC Crysis 2

  • 164 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Riadon2
#101 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

The KZ3 crag screens will match that. Where's a cow when you need him?

*edit*

jun_aka_pekto

Is there any other texture that detailed in the KZ games? I already saw similar textures near the beginning of KZ3. I even took a screenshot. Are there any more? I can't recall seeing better textures and I'm near the end of the jungle level in KZ3.

KZ3-Cap-10.png

Oh wait. I got this too. It's nice while looking down. But, as soon as I stare straight ahead, the texture quality seems to take a nosedive.

KZ3-Cap-19-1.png

Neither of those textures are any good.

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#102 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (23489 posts) -

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

The KZ3 crag screens will match that. Where's a cow when you need him?

*edit*

Riadon2

Is there any other texture that detailed in the KZ games? I already saw similar textures near the beginning of KZ3. I even took a screenshot. Are there any more? I can't recall seeing better textures and I'm near the end of the jungle level in KZ3.

Oh wait. I got this too. It's nice while looking down. But, as soon as I stare straight ahead, the texture quality seems to take a nosedive.

Neither of those textures are any good.

They look okay enough to me. But, I can't seem to find any other good textures in the KZ games.

Avatar image for Mr_BillGates
#103 Posted by Mr_BillGates (3210 posts) -

PC gamer's mentality is free games and graphics > gameplay.

Avatar image for OhSnapitz
#104 Posted by OhSnapitz (19277 posts) -

The two terms are subjective and their standards have been lowered considerably thanks to this prolonged console generation, but for me I define a playable framerate as anything above 35 FPS and decent graphics as fairly high-resolution textures and lack of pop-in and screen tearing. We all know that Crysis 2 on consoles has abominable frame rates that regularly plummet below 20 FPS and lots of screen tear and pop-in. princeofshapeir

Well according to the Lens of Truth the average FPS (for the 360 version) is 27 FPS. I didn't see where it "regularly plummet below 20 FPS".. :| And with my experience with the game I never noticed a dip that low... :| Have you played C2 on the consoles?

Avatar image for clone01
#105 Posted by clone01 (27148 posts) -
[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"] And there's a few morons in here trying to compare there consoles to PC

"Their," not "there." If you're going to call people morons, don't post like one yourself.
Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
#106 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

And there's a few morons in here trying to compare there consoles to PC mrfrosty151986

Call me crazy, but I don't see much difference between the PC versions of games and the console versions. Look at the Far Cry 3 GS comparison for example, the PC version looks the same as the console versions, even at the max settings.

All systems have good graphic games though, so we should be happy that everyone get's great looking games to play. Except for the Wii obviously.

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#107 Posted by MonsieurX (37417 posts) -

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"] And there's a few morons in here trying to compare there consoles to PC ShadowMoses900

Call me crazy, but I don't see much difference between the PC versions of games and the console versions. Look at the Far Cry 3 GS comparison for example, the PC version looks the same as the console versions, even at the max settings.

All systems have good graphic games though, so we should be happy that everyone get's great looking games to play. Except for the Wii obviously.

Crazy.
Avatar image for clone01
#108 Posted by clone01 (27148 posts) -
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"] And there's a few morons in here trying to compare there consoles to PC MonsieurX

Call me crazy, but I don't see much difference between the PC versions of games and the console versions. Look at the Far Cry 3 GS comparison for example, the PC version looks the same as the console versions, even at the max settings.

All systems have good graphic games though, so we should be happy that everyone get's great looking games to play. Except for the Wii obviously.

Crazy.

you crazy!
Avatar image for lowe0
#109 Posted by lowe0 (13692 posts) -
[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"]

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"] No console gamers don't care. And your response clearly shows you have no clue what this thread is even about. You are comparing a console game to a console game.......herrr Derp. Seeing what I said clearly went over your head. I will explain. I am saying console gamers don't give a rats ass that PC has better graphics. Don't be so slow.AmazonTreeBoa

Hahaha..... Is that a joke? Sheer amount of threads made by console sheep trying to say console games are better looking then PC is unreal... :lol:

Do you have your head up your ass which has resulted in you not seeing the threads or are really just that blind? :lol:

Those threads are made my trolls you moron. Are you actually sitting here telling me you are so stupid you actually take troll threads seriously and try to use them in your arguments? Man that's just pathetic and laughable as hell. You truly are an idiot.

It's fair to criticize them, trolls or not.
Avatar image for clyde46
#110 Posted by clyde46 (49053 posts) -
[QUOTE="MonsieurX"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Call me crazy, but I don't see much difference between the PC versions of games and the console versions. Look at the Far Cry 3 GS comparison for example, the PC version looks the same as the console versions, even at the max settings.

All systems have good graphic games though, so we should be happy that everyone get's great looking games to play. Except for the Wii obviously.

clone01
Crazy.

you crazy!

Everyone's crazy.
Avatar image for mitu123
#111 Posted by mitu123 (155235 posts) -

There is none, consoles are outdated crap!

Avatar image for GamingVengeance
#112 Posted by GamingVengeance (1874 posts) -
we pay a premium for textures like that. it wouldn't make sense if little ol consoles had textures as sharp as the best on pc . dont be stupid
Avatar image for GamingVengeance
#113 Posted by GamingVengeance (1874 posts) -

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"] The two terms are subjective and their standards have been lowered considerably thanks to this prolonged console generation, but for me I define a playable framerate as anything above 35 FPS and decent graphics as fairly high-resolution textures and lack of pop-in and screen tearing. We all know that Crysis 2 on consoles has abominable frame rates that regularly plummet below 20 FPS and lots of screen tear and pop-in. OhSnapitz

Well according to the Lens of Truth the average FPS (for the 360 version) is 27 FPS. I didn't see where it "regularly plummet below 20 FPS".. :| And with my experience with the game I never noticed a dip that low... :| Have you played C2 on the consoles?

thats fvcking terrible lol even if that was just its low thatd be bad, but its average?!?!?!?! stop the madness!!!!!!!

lol but ya i got the game on ps3 too, i dont think the fps ever dipped below 20

Avatar image for Riadon2
#114 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"]

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"] The two terms are subjective and their standards have been lowered considerably thanks to this prolonged console generation, but for me I define a playable framerate as anything above 35 FPS and decent graphics as fairly high-resolution textures and lack of pop-in and screen tearing. We all know that Crysis 2 on consoles has abominable frame rates that regularly plummet below 20 FPS and lots of screen tear and pop-in. GamingVengeance

Well according to the Lens of Truth the average FPS (for the 360 version) is 27 FPS. I didn't see where it "regularly plummet below 20 FPS".. :| And with my experience with the game I never noticed a dip that low... :| Have you played C2 on the consoles?

thats fvcking terrible lol even if that was just its low thatd be bad, but its average?!?!?!?! stop the madness!!!!!!!

lol but ya i got the game on ps3 too, i dont think the fps ever dipped below 20

I know right?

I can't play at a constant 30 fps without headaches and eye-strain, let alone 27 with drops.

Avatar image for clyde46
#115 Posted by clyde46 (49053 posts) -

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"]

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"] The two terms are subjective and their standards have been lowered considerably thanks to this prolonged console generation, but for me I define a playable framerate as anything above 35 FPS and decent graphics as fairly high-resolution textures and lack of pop-in and screen tearing. We all know that Crysis 2 on consoles has abominable frame rates that regularly plummet below 20 FPS and lots of screen tear and pop-in. GamingVengeance

Well according to the Lens of Truth the average FPS (for the 360 version) is 27 FPS. I didn't see where it "regularly plummet below 20 FPS".. :| And with my experience with the game I never noticed a dip that low... :| Have you played C2 on the consoles?

thats fvcking terrible lol even if that was just its low thatd be bad, but its average?!?!?!?! stop the madness!!!!!!!

lol but ya i got the game on ps3 too, i dont think the fps ever dipped below 20

I find some games work better at low FPS than others. Take GTA4, at 30FPS its still playable. Sleeping Dogs on the other hand, if that drops to 40FPS then its unplayable.
Avatar image for GamingVengeance
#116 Posted by GamingVengeance (1874 posts) -

[QUOTE="GamingVengeance"]

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"]

Well according to the Lens of Truth the average FPS (for the 360 version) is 27 FPS. I didn't see where it "regularly plummet below 20 FPS".. :| And with my experience with the game I never noticed a dip that low... :| Have you played C2 on the consoles?

clyde46

thats fvcking terrible lol even if that was just its low thatd be bad, but its average?!?!?!?! stop the madness!!!!!!!

lol but ya i got the game on ps3 too, i dont think the fps ever dipped below 20

I find some games work better at low FPS than others. Take GTA4, at 30FPS its still playable. Sleeping Dogs on the other hand, if that drops to 40FPS then its unplayable.

its not that they work better, its just that some games are perfectly fine at a lower fps and you dont even really notice that its not a 60 fps, RTS for example really dont need more than 30 to perfectly playable.

for fps's tho(either single or multiplayer) 60 fps feel so much better. but ya i get what your saying, even at 45 fps sleeping dogs feels really weird

edit: i read what you said wrong lol sorry

Avatar image for clone01
#117 Posted by clone01 (27148 posts) -
[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="clone01"][QUOTE="MonsieurX"] Crazy.

you crazy!

Everyone's crazy.

The whole damn system is crazy!!!!
Avatar image for blackace
#118 Posted by blackace (23576 posts) -

Lol.

No console game can match this. All of those textures are rendered under DX11.

GamerwillzPS
There's no console that has THAT PC's hardware in it to display those graphics. The current consoles on the market all have over 6 years tech in them. ;) Not sure how the TC wouldn't know this. lol!!
Avatar image for blackace
#119 Posted by blackace (23576 posts) -

Not a single post with pictures of Uncharted, Gears or Killzone, Are console sheep finally learning?

mrfrosty151986
LOL!! Who the hell would compare console graphics to PC graphics? Take ALL the hardware out of that PC and stick it into the XBox 360. Hook the 360 up to a PC monitor, run the game and then LET'S COMPARE. lol!! This thread is so stupid it isn't even funny. Most cows, lems and sheep compare graphics with the other consoles and not the PC. When graphics king is being claimed, they are talking about consoles only and not PC or Mac.
Avatar image for clyde46
#120 Posted by clyde46 (49053 posts) -
[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"]

Not a single post with pictures of Uncharted, Gears or Killzone, Are console sheep finally learning?

blackace
LOL!! Who the hell would compare console graphics to PC graphics? Take ALL the hardware out of that PC and stick it into the XBox 360. Hook the 360 up to a PC monitor, run the game and then LET'S COMPARE. lol!! This thread is so stupid it isn't even funny. Most cows, lems and sheep compare graphics with the other consoles and not the PC. When graphics king is being claimed, they are talking about consoles only and not PC or Mac.

About 2 years ago we were having threads saying that the 360 could run Crysis 1. Now'a'days not so much.
Avatar image for the_bi99man
#121 Posted by the_bi99man (11244 posts) -

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"] And there's a few morons in here trying to compare there consoles to PC ShadowMoses900

Call me crazy, but I don't see much difference between the PC versions of games and the console versions. Look at the Far Cry 3 GS comparison for example, the PC version looks the same as the console versions, even at the max settings.

All systems have good graphic games though, so we should be happy that everyone get's great looking games to play. Except for the Wii obviously.

The GS comparison video maxed out at 720p. I know from testing it myself that FC3 graphics take a MASSIVE leap from 720 to 1080p. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know how big of a jump that is. You've never actually seen 1920x1080 pixels.

Also, wow. This thread made it this many pages?

Avatar image for blackace
#122 Posted by blackace (23576 posts) -
[QUOTE="muffin200"]

A better Find me might be.

Find a PC that cost $300 7seven years ago, has had no upgrades and can run that game.

mrfrosty151986
Show me a console that launched 7 years ago that can do all the things a $300 PC can do.

Is your mind all there? A console is for playing games, movies, demos, chatting with friend and socializing. A PC can do all those thing plus run hundreds of productive programs. A console could never do all the things a PC can do or else it would be called a PC. ;)
Avatar image for the_bi99man
#123 Posted by the_bi99man (11244 posts) -

[QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"]

Not a single post with pictures of Uncharted, Gears or Killzone, Are console sheep finally learning?

blackace

LOL!! Who the hell would compare console graphics to PC graphics?

Shadowmoses. He has, on several occasions, even in this very thread, claimed that he doesn't see a difference between them. Which makes sense because, never having actually played PC games, he bases that opinion on heavily compressed 720p 30fps graphics comparison videos on youtube.

He has also claimed on multiple occasions that Uncharted 3 has better graphics than ANY game, including all PC games.

Avatar image for blackace
#124 Posted by blackace (23576 posts) -
[QUOTE="blackace"][QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"]

Not a single post with pictures of Uncharted, Gears or Killzone, Are console sheep finally learning?

clyde46
LOL!! Who the hell would compare console graphics to PC graphics? Take ALL the hardware out of that PC and stick it into the XBox 360. Hook the 360 up to a PC monitor, run the game and then LET'S COMPARE. lol!! This thread is so stupid it isn't even funny. Most cows, lems and sheep compare graphics with the other consoles and not the PC. When graphics king is being claimed, they are talking about consoles only and not PC or Mac.

About 2 years ago we were having threads saying that the 360 could run Crysis 1. Now'a'days not so much.

Well Crysis 2 was made for the XBox 360 and PS3, so I guess it's possible the game could run on those consoles, but it would never look as good as the PC, because of the hardware and RAM. That's obvious.
Avatar image for blackace
#125 Posted by blackace (23576 posts) -

[QUOTE="blackace"][QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"]

Not a single post with pictures of Uncharted, Gears or Killzone, Are console sheep finally learning?

the_bi99man

LOL!! Who the hell would compare console graphics to PC graphics?

Shadowmoses. He has, on several occasions, even in this very thread, claimed that he doesn't see a difference between them. Which makes sense because, never having actually played PC games, he bases that opinion on heavily compressed 720p 30fps graphics comparison videos on youtube.

He has also claimed on multiple occasions that Uncharted 3 has better graphics than ANY game, including all PC games.

He's crazy. Uncharted 3 could run on the PC in a higher resolution easily.
Avatar image for Riadon2
#126 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

[QUOTE="blackace"][QUOTE="mrfrosty151986"]

Not a single post with pictures of Uncharted, Gears or Killzone, Are console sheep finally learning?

the_bi99man

LOL!! Who the hell would compare console graphics to PC graphics?

Shadowmoses. He has, on several occasions, even in this very thread, claimed that he doesn't see a difference between them. Which makes sense because, never having actually played PC games, he bases that opinion on heavily compressed 720p 30fps graphics comparison videos on youtube.

He has also claimed on multiple occasions that Uncharted 3 has better graphics than ANY game, including all PC games.

31542134.jpg

Avatar image for clyde46
#127 Posted by clyde46 (49053 posts) -
[QUOTE="blackace"][QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="blackace"] LOL!! Who the hell would compare console graphics to PC graphics? Take ALL the hardware out of that PC and stick it into the XBox 360. Hook the 360 up to a PC monitor, run the game and then LET'S COMPARE. lol!! This thread is so stupid it isn't even funny. Most cows, lems and sheep compare graphics with the other consoles and not the PC. When graphics king is being claimed, they are talking about consoles only and not PC or Mac.

About 2 years ago we were having threads saying that the 360 could run Crysis 1. Now'a'days not so much.

Well Crysis 2 was made for the XBox 360 and PS3, so I guess it's possible the game could run on those consoles, but it would never look as good as the PC, because of the hardware and RAM. That's obvious.

Thats obvious to a sane person but these threads would go on and on and on because people wouldnt accept that fact.
Avatar image for OhSnapitz
#128 Posted by OhSnapitz (19277 posts) -

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"]

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"] The two terms are subjective and their standards have been lowered considerably thanks to this prolonged console generation, but for me I define a playable framerate as anything above 35 FPS and decent graphics as fairly high-resolution textures and lack of pop-in and screen tearing. We all know that Crysis 2 on consoles has abominable frame rates that regularly plummet below 20 FPS and lots of screen tear and pop-in. GamingVengeance

Well according to the Lens of Truth the average FPS (for the 360 version) is 27 FPS. I didn't see where it "regularly plummet below 20 FPS".. :| And with my experience with the game I never noticed a dip that low... :| Have you played C2 on the consoles?

thats fvcking terrible lol even if that was just its low thatd be bad, but its average?!?!?!?! stop the madness!!!!!!!

lol but ya i got the game on ps3 too, i dont think the fps ever dipped below 20

Well hot dog.. just find me a 2005 PC that can play C2 at 45 fps and costs $300 and we'd be golden.. :|
Avatar image for hexashadow13
#129 Posted by hexashadow13 (5157 posts) -

[QUOTE="GamingVengeance"]

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"]

Well according to the Lens of Truth the average FPS (for the 360 version) is 27 FPS. I didn't see where it "regularly plummet below 20 FPS".. :| And with my experience with the game I never noticed a dip that low... :| Have you played C2 on the consoles?

OhSnapitz

thats fvcking terrible lol even if that was just its low thatd be bad, but its average?!?!?!?! stop the madness!!!!!!!

lol but ya i got the game on ps3 too, i dont think the fps ever dipped below 20

Well hot dog.. just find me a 2005 PC that can play C2 at 45 fps and costs $300 and we'd be golden.. :|

I can find you one in 2008 for $400 at around 40 fps? Close enough?

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/253621-33-crysis-settings but replace the 9600gt with a 9800gt which should cost an extra $50-$80. So considering rebates that's $400ish.

http://www.geforce.com/optimize/optimal-game-settings/Crysis-2-GeForce-9800-GT-OPS

Benchmark is old and drivers have been upgraded so expect some extra fps.

Avatar image for mrmcygan
#130 Posted by mrmcygan (882 posts) -

killzone3

killzone-3-beta-27.png

Avatar image for Riadon2
#131 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

[QUOTE="GamingVengeance"]

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"]

Well according to the Lens of Truth the average FPS (for the 360 version) is 27 FPS. I didn't see where it "regularly plummet below 20 FPS".. :| And with my experience with the game I never noticed a dip that low... :| Have you played C2 on the consoles?

OhSnapitz

thats fvcking terrible lol even if that was just its low thatd be bad, but its average?!?!?!?! stop the madness!!!!!!!

lol but ya i got the game on ps3 too, i dont think the fps ever dipped below 20

Well hot dog.. just find me a 2005 PC that can play C2 at 45 fps and costs $300 and we'd be golden.. :|

Find me a 2005 console that can play C2 at 30 fps.

Find me a 2005 console that can do even a fraction of the things a $300 2005 PC can do.

Find me someone stupid enough to buy a $300 PC from 2005.

Find me a consolite that is intelligent enough to realize that it is cheaper to buy an all-purpose machine with yearly sales of 75% or more.

Find me a reason to care what a $300 PC from 2005 can do.

Avatar image for Riadon2
#132 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

killzone3

killzone-3-beta-27.png

mrmcygan

That looks bad and you aren't even close to the texture.

iQYyD6OLXOfEc.bmp

THIS is a good texture.

Try again.

Avatar image for gamebreakerz__
#133 Posted by gamebreakerz__ (5120 posts) -
This goes down as one of the more pointless threads, which is saying something.
Avatar image for mitu123
#134 Posted by mitu123 (155235 posts) -

killzone3

killzone-3-beta-27.png

mrmcygan

Lulz at some of the s***** in areas...

Avatar image for Grawse
#135 Posted by Grawse (4342 posts) -

killzone3

killzone-3-beta-27.png

mrmcygan
Hermits just got owned.
Avatar image for Riadon2
#136 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

[QUOTE="mrmcygan"]

killzone3

killzone-3-beta-27.png

Grawse

Hermits just got owned.

You're right, that 512x512 texture totally owned me.

Avatar image for GamerwillzPS
#137 Posted by GamerwillzPS (8531 posts) -

killzone3

killzone-3-beta-27.png

mrmcygan

When you change your viewing angle, it'll be flat.

On PC, you'll see tessellated textures with real-like surfaces. (bumpy)

Avatar image for Wasdie
#138 Posted by Wasdie (53525 posts) -

[QUOTE="mrmcygan"]

killzone3

killzone-3-beta-27.png

GamerwillzPS

When you change your viewing angle, it'll be flat.

On PC, you'll see tessellated textures with real-like surfaces. (bumpy)

Textures don't get tessellated and most games are still using PoM and bump mapping paired with normal mapping as most game are still DX9.

Avatar image for topgunmv
#139 Posted by topgunmv (10754 posts) -

Why do people post modded crysis 2 textures and then try to give crytek the credit for it?

The "hd texture pack" still looks like ass for the most part.

Give credit where credit is due, the maldo hd mod.

Avatar image for Riadon2
#140 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

Why do people post modded crysis 2 textures and then try to give crytek the credit for it?

The "hd texture pack" still looks like ass for the most part.

Give credit where credit is due, the maldo hd mod.

topgunmv

I'm pretty sure the OP's picture isn't using Maldo's, those bricks don't look like 2048x textures.

Avatar image for mariokart64fan
#141 Posted by mariokart64fan (20741 posts) -

perfect dark zero , and im sure once wii u gets off its feet its going to show something better then that!

Avatar image for topgunmv
#142 Posted by topgunmv (10754 posts) -

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

Why do people post modded crysis 2 textures and then try to give crytek the credit for it?

The "hd texture pack" still looks like ass for the most part.

Give credit where credit is due, the maldo hd mod.

Riadon2

I'm pretty sure the OP's picture isn't using Maldo's, those bricks don't look like 2048x textures.

I don't think the op is either, but others are posting things like the sewer covers which are obviously from Maldo's.

Avatar image for OhSnapitz
#143 Posted by OhSnapitz (19277 posts) -

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"][QUOTE="GamingVengeance"]

thats fvcking terrible lol even if that was just its low thatd be bad, but its average?!?!?!?! stop the madness!!!!!!!

lol but ya i got the game on ps3 too, i dont think the fps ever dipped below 20

Riadon2

Well hot dog.. just find me a 2005 PC that can play C2 at 45 fps and costs $300 and we'd be golden.. :|

Find me a 2005 console that can play C2 at 30 fps.

Find me a 2005 console that can do even a fraction of the things a $300 2005 PC can do.

Find me someone stupid enough to buy a $300 PC from 2005.

Find me a consolite that is intelligent enough to realize that it is cheaper to buy an all-purpose machine with yearly sales of 75% or more.

Find me a reason to care what a $300 PC from 2005 can do.

..or better yet.. Find me some idiots comparing a PC to 7+ yr old hardware claiming ownage. :|
Avatar image for GamingVengeance
#144 Posted by GamingVengeance (1874 posts) -
[QUOTE="GamingVengeance"]

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"]

Well according to the Lens of Truth the average FPS (for the 360 version) is 27 FPS. I didn't see where it "regularly plummet below 20 FPS".. :| And with my experience with the game I never noticed a dip that low... :| Have you played C2 on the consoles?

OhSnapitz

thats fvcking terrible lol even if that was just its low thatd be bad, but its average?!?!?!?! stop the madness!!!!!!!

lol but ya i got the game on ps3 too, i dont think the fps ever dipped below 20

Well hot dog.. just find me a 2005 PC that can play C2 at 45 fps and costs $300 and we'd be golden.. :|

find me a 2005 console that can play C2 at 45 fps and costs $300??? and the 360 was closer to $500 bucks after taxes at launch
Avatar image for OhSnapitz
#145 Posted by OhSnapitz (19277 posts) -

[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"][QUOTE="GamingVengeance"]

thats fvcking terrible lol even if that was just its low thatd be bad, but its average?!?!?!?! stop the madness!!!!!!!

lol but ya i got the game on ps3 too, i dont think the fps ever dipped below 20

GamingVengeance

Well hot dog.. just find me a 2005 PC that can play C2 at 45 fps and costs $300 and we'd be golden.. :|

find me a 2005 console that can play C2 at 45 fps and costs $300??? and the 360 was closer to $500 bucks after taxes at launch

The XBox 360 Launched November 2005 with 2 SKU's priced at $299 & $399 Both can run C2..:|

You know... for you guys to be hermits you sure are uninformed. :?

Avatar image for hexashadow13
#146 Posted by hexashadow13 (5157 posts) -

[QUOTE="GamingVengeance"][QUOTE="OhSnapitz"] Well hot dog.. just find me a 2005 PC that can play C2 at 45 fps and costs $300 and we'd be golden.. :|OhSnapitz

find me a 2005 console that can play C2 at 45 fps and costs $300??? and the 360 was closer to $500 bucks after taxes at launch

The XBox 360 Launched November 2005 with 2 SKU's priced at $299 & $399 Both can run C2..:|

You know... for you guys to be hermits you sure are uninformed. :?

Maybe he lives in Canada? :P

Also I was unaware that hermits are stereotypically supposed to be more knowledgeable than their console brethren. Interesting.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#147 Posted by lundy86_4 (49107 posts) -

Maybe he lives in Canada? :P

Also I was unaware that hermits are stereotypically supposed to be more knowledgeable than their console brethren. Interesting.

hexashadow13

They were more expensive. Mine was almost $600 after taxes.

Avatar image for OhSnapitz
#148 Posted by OhSnapitz (19277 posts) -
[QUOTE="OhSnapitz"]

[QUOTE="GamingVengeance"] find me a 2005 console that can play C2 at 45 fps and costs $300??? and the 360 was closer to $500 bucks after taxes at launchhexashadow13

The XBox 360 Launched November 2005 with 2 SKU's priced at $299 & $399 Both can run C2..:|

You know... for you guys to be hermits you sure are uninformed. :?

Maybe he lives in Canada? :P

Goodbye $1000 PC Hello $2000 PC.. :P
Avatar image for straightedge_X
#149 Posted by straightedge_X (712 posts) -

Look at the Far Cry 3 GS comparison for example, the PC version looks the same as the console versions, even at the max settings.ShadowMoses900

You're crazy then. :P

There's a massive difference between the PC version and console versions. It's still the same great game, but graphically they couldn't be further apart. Looks good for a console game though, especially when you take into account the scale.
Avatar image for mitu123
#150 Posted by mitu123 (155235 posts) -

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Look at the Far Cry 3 GS comparison for example, the PC version looks the same as the console versions, even at the max settings.straightedge_X

You're crazy then. :P

There's a massive difference between the PC version and console versions. It's still the same great game, but graphically they couldn't be further apart. Looks good for a console game though, especially when you take into account the scale.

He's not just crazy, just a bad troll.