[QUOTE=Slight;28886569]I read the first paragraph and, with my mild understanding of hardware terminology, jumped right to comments to see if anyone else was confused. Made the rest of the article more enjoyable at least.
:bravo: you've managed to misinterpret the entire post! You're responses are full of emotion and pointless statements too, be more analytical. The guy you quoted expressed widely held concerns very clearly and I support him. He's not saying Crysis 2 is a terrible game. He's basically saying its not what it should be and the engine doesn't deserve to be called the crytek 2 engine.[/QUOTE]
He didn't make the game, he doesn't get to decide whether or not the game is what it [I]should[/I] be. That's Crytek's decision. He's just mad because the game isn't what he [I]wanted[/I] it to be. And as a wise sage with huge lips once said "You can't always get what you want".
So we have then all come to the conclusion... That both the games rock and they have their advantages and disadvantages! Am I right or am I? ;)
[quote]Crysis, built in the CryEngine 2, was capable of a 32.2m pixel spread across a 12 joule range, displayed in a dynamically generated four-part volumetric resource buffer. This meant a broad spectrum resonance in the upper 40s, with significant occlusion.[/quote]
:psyboom:
[QUOTE=crash46;28896474]So we have then all come to the conclusion... That both the games rock and they have their advantages and disadvantages! Am I right or am I? ;)[/QUOTE]
yep, spot on
This uses 1.21 gigawatts less electricity than the original.
[b]THIS SUCKS.[/b]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
