Fun Stuff > CLIKC
Battlefield Bad Company mixed in with EA slagging
Dimmukane:
Well...he would know.
himynameisjulien:
But why even put out a game whose engine restricts the majority of buyers from playing it at the levels that are "ahead of it's time"? If no one has the capacity to use the next-gen (actually next-next gen, since people just now can play it on full at acceptable FPS) features, EA should know that, and try to cut out things that are just unimportant. Like the leaves moving dynamically when you move through them. Very few other games have that, and they can all be just as fun, or more so. Crysis got a 9.5 from IGN, not bad at all; Halo 3 got a 9.7, and MGS4 got a perfect 10. Neither of the latter games have the "graphical enhancements" of Crysis. However, and this may or may not be a problem depending on how you look at it, those games are console games, which means they are tailored for a specific system. Which happens to cost a hell of a lot less than a PC that can run Crysis on full. (I'm guessing $4000, built yourself, vs. $400 or $300)
Dimmukane:
Because there is a large enough demographic that will buy things because they look good. Or at least try to acquire them, which the piracy rates have shown. It was the same story with Far Cry, albeit broadband speeds were slower, so more people actually bought the game.
Ozymandias:
--- Quote from: himynameisjulien on 09 Jul 2008, 10:56 ---Crysis got a 9.5 from IGN, not bad at all; Halo 3 got a 9.7, and MGS4 got a perfect 10.
--- End quote ---
Man, IGN is the last place I would expect any sort of decent journalism or unbiased reviews.
(As evidenced by the fact that Halo 3 got a 9.7 and MGS4 got a perfect 10.)
dennis:
Crysis and the PCs that people build to run it are kind of like F1 racing.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version