Crytek: Crysis 2 the same on PS3, 360

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 17 March, 2011

No "meaningful difference".

German developer Crytek has hit back at those who have criticised the PlayStation 3 version of upcoming first-person shooter, insisting it is exactly the same as the Xbox 360 version.

The PlayStation 3 version reportedly runs at a lower resolution than the Xbox 360 version and suffers from framerate and tearing issues.

But in a new interview with the PlayStation Blog, executive producer Nathan Camarillo denied such accusations.

"I've gone on the record saying that if you stick PS3 and 360 side by side I would challenge anyone to find any meaningful difference," he said. "I don't see it at all."

The PS3 Crysis 2 multiplayer demo hit the EU PlayStation Store yesterday.

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (73) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • George-Roper #1 1 year ago

    You don't see it or youve been given actual technical facts by the devs?

    Quite a big difference.

    Edit: Typo!
    Edited by George-Roper at 17/03/11 @ 13:06

  • telboy007 #2 1 year ago

    From what I've played of the 360 demos, the PS3 one is a laggy tear fest as well? Shucks.

  • StolenGlory #3 1 year ago

    Did this guy smoke a bowl before he made these comments?

  • chris_ace #4 1 year ago

    Post deleted at 11:55:13 13-12-2011

  • Progguitarist #5 1 year ago

    Damage limitation methinks. The PS3 demo performs poorly. It looks slightly nicer overall but chugs really badly at times.

  • CaptainQuint #6 1 year ago

    After watching the latest videos of the campaign which are on the Xbox marketplace, I've become rather alarmed by the technical issues which are immediately apparent to my eye and really badly distracting. The texture pop in is absolutely atrocious, unacceptably so, and the frame rate looks to dip frequently below 30fps, it's not very smooth in places at all.

    Looks to me like another over-promise from a developer and I'm tired of the disappointment that brings. This was gonna be an insta-buy for me, but now I'm absolutely going to be watching the review scores for this game before making a purchase.

  • peteb #7 1 year ago

    To the Digital Foundry Copter!

  • Ranger101 #8 1 year ago

    digitalfoundary... GO!

  • BadBoyBonner #9 1 year ago

    Mate who works at an IT install company has taken delivery of Nvidia 590.

    Had Crysis running with every thing maxed out at 126 frames per second at 1080p
    Edited by BadBoyBonner at 18/03/11 @ 13:07

  • richarddavies #10 1 year ago

    If you sit them side by side and pick at them both im sure you could find small technical differences but i've played both and they both played the same to me.

  • bad09 #11 1 year ago

    It's sad how the benchmark for graphics to this day on PC has spawned a sequel for fanboys to squabble over differences in detail most people won't even notice. Bloody consoles.....

  • TonyCB #12 1 year ago

    Played the PS3 version last night - when I eventually managed to login to a game, I was a bit disappointed. Movement felt like 'Bambi on Ice'

    Will give the 360 version a go and see if it is different but couldnt agree more with bad09, the original crysis on a good PC blows this away
    Edited by TonyCB at 17/03/11 @ 09:59

  • monty2k #13 1 year ago

    I've played both demos and they are pretty much the same.

    A more stable framerate on the 360 version with better weapon/cloak effects and blur on the PS3. I don't see this vaseline/teh jaggies on the PS3 version.

    One thing though - I cannot get the ideal settings for the brightness/gamma on the 360 demo. It's either a little bit too dark or a little bit too bright. For some reason the PS3 defaults at exactly the right brightness for me :S

  • tiny_Eggy #14 1 year ago

    Doesn't really matter, both console versions are barely playable because of all the texture en object popin, framerate issues and tearing. Sadly the PC version looks no better than the original Crysis because of all the effort that went into making Crysis 2 run on the consoles.

    All 3 platforms lose.

  • menage #15 1 year ago

    So basically both console versions can't handle the game then, cause the PS3 demo I played yesterday looked blurry and low res, with pop in and screenlag tearing a plenty.

    Fuck, I was really looking forward to this, but now I might not even get it at all.

    And it took 15 minutes to get into a game.

    Biggest disappoint already this year imo (I wasn't expecting much from KZ3 so that doesn't count). Luckily Mortal Kombat saved the day, that was actually a lot more fun then I expected
    Edited by menage at 17/03/11 @ 10:06

  • mr2ange #16 1 year ago

    FPS < 30fps = not worth a wank
    Fighting game < 30fps = not worth a wank
    Racing game M< 30fps = not worth a wank

  • TonyCB #17 1 year ago

    @mr2ange

    One track mind my friend? :)

  • Osahi #18 1 year ago

    Didn't play it on Xbox yet, but I rather enjoyed the demo on PS3 to be honest. Framerate has some issues and movement can feel slow, but I enjoyed it gameplay wise nontheless. If i was sure my PC could pull it I'd go for that version, but the PS3 version will do fine (don't have an Xbox, but even then, most of my online buddies are on PS3)

    And yeah, won't be the first demo that doesn't do justice to the final product, because demo's are usually older builds (it takes quite some time to clear a demo for PSN/XBLA) and the last weaks of tweaking can be meaningfull. The Mass Effect 2 demo for instance almost made me cancel my preorder .But the game itself was on a whole other level

  • Bigmac1910 #19 1 year ago

    He is flat out lying, the PS3 version does look worse with more jaggies, more blurry look and the draw distance is worse compared to the 360 version. I haven't noticed any screen tearing but the frame rate does seem to be uneven. (I have both 360 and PS3) From a gameplay perspective it seem quite equal though.

  • Vlad27145 #20 1 year ago

    @mr2ange

    So, I guess for you Halo Reach, Killzone 2&3, Battelfield:BC2, Bioshock are not worth a wank? What FPS do you play if you don't mind me asking? Just COD?

    EDIT: Unless, of course, you're a PC gamer, which would explain the statement. BUt even if that were true, it's a pretty radical way of putting it, my friend...
    Edited by Vlad27145 at 17/03/11 @ 10:14

  • tiny_Eggy #21 1 year ago

    @Bigmac1910
    17/03/11 @ 10:12

    Actually the PS3 versions looks slightly better, it has slightly less popin, better anisotropic filtering, lighting and shadows but it has a worse framerate than the xbox 360. So performance wise the Xbox 360 wins but detail wise the PS3. Fight! ;)

  • bad09 #22 1 year ago

    Gamers obsessed with FPS over the game itself = not worth a wank

  • bluetoothion #23 1 year ago

    Lets go easy on crytek guys....its not easy to give focus to consoles when you have been spoiled with PC

    its only natural for any game developer that can create almost anything they want and being able to blame gamers for not having the horsepower to play their almighty resourse sucking games , to find their abilities being challenged with a closed console enviroment.

  • mr2ange #24 1 year ago

    @Vlad27145

    I'm not a PC gamer anymore / Dont play COD
    But games in these genre's have to atleast be solid framerates.

    I'm suprised at the negs to be honest...

    Imagine playing tekken with a dodgy unstable framerate or GT/Forza where it drops mid corner? it would be rubbish/unplayable
    If the developers cant be bothered to make the right level of detail for the capability of their engine or the machine then it affects the gameplay way too much.

    if you had a choice between a solid framerate with 20% less leaves on the trees or a slow one with more then which would you choose?

    @TonyCB - yes i think i need one. (good point you make)

  • mr2ange #25 1 year ago

    @Bad09

    My exact problem with it is that the game/genre itself is massively dependent on stable gameplay (read my other post)

    The framerate affects the gameplay - make it stable

  • MiY4MOTO #26 1 year ago

    Go Go Digital Foundry!

  • menage #27 1 year ago

    @mr2ange

    I asctually agree with that. How about some less boats in that harbor instead of sacrificing stability Crytek. Jeez, everyone could see where the blame lies. Trying to cram everything in until it falls apart

  • NOSAVIOUR #28 1 year ago

    Played the 360 version to death and it's more stable than the PS3, but only slightly. The resolution beats it too but not enough to worry about. The PS3 version though has much better saturation levels and looks better for it. The bloom effects really stand out. Also there is a motion blur when sliding which is a nice added effect and the cloak and armour effects are both superior.

    I'm getting the 360 version (friends list and controller pref), but i'm hoping they sort the saturation levels (at present it looks pretty bright and washed out in places) and add in these extra effects from the PS3 version as they give it the edge for me.
    Edited by NOSAVIOUR at 17/03/11 @ 10:29

  • Vlad27145 #29 1 year ago

    @tiny_Eggy

    For what it's worth, LoT did a screenshot comparison, and while it can't show pop-in, obviously, some details do look quite pared back on PS3. Of course, they were off the mark before, be it voluntarily or not, so I know it's to be taken with a grain of salt. But between Killzone (be it 2 or 3) and Crysis 2, they gave the win graphically to the former games, so if they're "biased", they covered their backs on this :D
    Here's the link: http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head/ver...

  • orangpelupa #30 1 year ago

    after Crysis 2 FINAL RETAIL released, cant wait for DF analysis :D

  • pantherjag #31 1 year ago

    check out this videos comparision off the demos

    [link url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAvwioAx0nE&hd=1
    ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAvwioAx0...[/link]

    Shows that both console versions look identical(almost) interestingly the PS3 and PC are using a different lighting technique than the 360 in one instance.

  • Bigmac1910 #32 1 year ago

    @Tiny Eggy

    I guess it depends on your TV as well, as the TV does the scaling for the PS3, while the 360 does it's own scaling. I have an older 32" Samsung LCD, and it shows more of the flaws than a newer TV does I've noticed. So for me the 360 wins hands down in this scenario.

  • technicianTed #33 1 year ago

    Looks better, runs better, is better on 360.

    Ps3 one is blurry i thought and doesn't look as sharp as on 360.

    Not overly impressed with the game so far, maybe the single player will be good once you get into it.

  • bad09 #34 1 year ago

    @mr2ange

    Meh, I played crysis on my old rig and barely hit 30fps. Did it affect my enjoyment? Not in anyway whatsoever. Sure more fps make a smoother gameplay experience but games don't suddenly become unplayable or unstable at 30.

  • mr2ange #35 1 year ago

    @bad09

    If you had seen it running at 60fps first then i expect you would have felt different.

    I'm not saying that a game running at a SOLID 30fps is bad in any way. if it is consistent.

    But when its bouncing between 15-20-30 constantly, it does affect the experience quite dramatically.

    My rig is probably too shit to even play Crysis 1 :(


    EDIT - Wow negatives on this comment... some people have some seriously low expectations from arguably one of the supposed big releases for the year...
    Edited by mr2ange at 17/03/11 @ 11:42

  • Goodfella #36 1 year ago

    This WAS a day one purchase but now it just looks like the PC version has been compromised by the shitty console versions, I'll wait on reviews.

  • Vlad27145 #37 1 year ago

    @mr2ange

    I didn't neg you, because I don't think you're totally wrong, and you did explain your point well in the second post. Framerate is obviously important, because it affects the gameplay severely. But I do understand where the negs are coming from too, as I said, the comment read as being pretty radical. I played Bioshock and B:BC2 on PC since I had the option to do so and enjoy the games at a better framerate, but those who don't have the option to do so would have missed some pretty good games if they decided to skip them for that reason. Bioshock was a fantastic experience.
    Also, take for example Shadow of the Colossus. The level of detail was fundamental to the enjoyment of the game, as seeing the Colossi so wonderfully represented gave you a connection to them which would have been difficult to obtain if they had been a blocky, blurry mess. Same goes for the world, where the lighting effects, the draw distance, etc. left you in awe and aided in connecting to the magic it was infused with.
    It was often at 15-20 FPS. Would it have been better at 30, or 60? Obviously! But should that have dissuaded them for putting the game out? Or the players from experiencing it? Compromises mostly suck, but sometimes it's better than nothing at all.

  • arcam #38 1 year ago

    Crysis did an awesome job of feeling smooth and responsive even at low framerates, but it's very much the exception not the norm. Perhaps Crysis 2 is similar, I haven't played it.

    But generally speaking, I have to admit, I find it very difficult to enjoy a remotely fast-paced FPS if I can't get to 30 frames per second.
    Edited by arcam at 17/03/11 @ 10:45

  • farlander #39 1 year ago

    There's definitely difference. The most notable one is in the text in the lobby, among other places: it's sharp on 360 and blurry on PS3. it seems to run in 1080p on PS3, but since we all know they don't render at that resolution, it's obvious it is being upscaled, and it's possible they use the same technology as Bioshock 2, where the frame is being rendered at a 960x1080 or 960x720 (the latter being morer likely), and then upscale vertical resolution to 1080 in software, and leave horizontal upscaling to 1920 to RSX. PS3 has hardware horizontal upscaling, but has no hardware vertical upscaling, and it supports resolutions of 960x1080, 1440x1080 and 1920x1080 in the 1080p mode.

  • farlander #40 1 year ago

    Oh, and I forgot to mention e framerate as well - lower on the PS3, with quite a bit of judder when under stress.

  • mr2ange #41 1 year ago

    @Vlad -

    SOTC - "It was often at 15-20 FPS. Would it have been better at 30, or 60? Obviously! But should that have dissuaded them for putting the game out? Or the players from experiencing it? Compromises mostly suck, but sometimes it's better than nothing at all."

    Good point there, I played it and loved it on ps2, but i tried again recently and i couldn't do it, it physically made my eyes hurt. - it actually dips to 12fps quite frequently....

    When the re-mastered, 60fps (hopefully) version comes out, i'll be all over it like a rash!

    Again though, that game is not an fps or a racer, it gives you time to press a button, if its super fast twitch gameplay you need, a low or unstable framerate will ruin it.

    Lastly, Zelda OOT on the 64 had a pretty bad framerate overall, but the gameplay was paced perfectly. thus it doesn't affect the game experience much at all. (making it still damn awesome regardless of the framerate)

  • dingo75 #42 1 year ago

    Crytek makes me feel bad being German. They should just shut the fuck up!
    All they do is bitch and moan and try to blame others for their shortcomings / faults.

  • tiny_Eggy #43 1 year ago

    Vlad27145
    17/03/11 @ 10:29

    Why does the PS3 version look so washed out in the lens of truth screenshots? Are they taken from youtube footage?

    http://h-2.abload.de/img/vsslot.gif

  • Darren #44 1 year ago

    I don't care what the differences are between the PS3 and Xbox 360 builds of Crysis 2 as I'm buying the game for the PC! :p

    Based on the demos though, the Xbox 360 version seemed pretty decent considering the age of the hardware the game is running on. Not hard chance to play the PS3 demo yet but if it has screen tearing then it'll be a try-once-then-delete-el-pronto one!

  • hiscore #45 1 year ago

    Played the PS3 demo. Only saw screen tearing in the tutorial movie.. but NOT in the actual gameplay. Framerate is 30 fps most of the time. Movement and control of movement can be a bit stiff or sticky, but it gives a sense of inertia to the combat (as K2 did). Didn't read all the hype, just tried the demo and was surprised in a good way. Give it a chance and don't believe all the negative buzz.

  • Gunhappy23 #46 1 year ago

    "Crysis 2 the same on PS3" What the hell was i playing last night i have played both versions now and the ps3 in my opinion was by far the worse poor famerate washed out look to it to me it looked sub HD which is a shame after playing games like Uncharted 2 , Killzone 3 and GT5 i am pretty sure the ps3 version could be on par with the 360 version didnt crytek say not long ago them saying they were getting more out of the ps3 than xbox. ??? http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head/ver...

    Did anyone else notice that the solar panels on skyline are missing on the ps3 version?? I did find that the ps3 had better lighting effects in some areas.
    Edited by Gunhappy23 at 17/03/11 @ 11:34

  • carlosdfn #47 1 year ago

    I wonder how blind people managed to create a videogame in the first place...

  • Darren #48 1 year ago

    This blog seems to suggest the final PS3 game is much improved over the demo:

    [link url=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/291859/blog/crysis-2-looks-bad-on-ps3-we-finished-it-yesterday-and-have-to-disagree-says-psm3/?site=psm
    ]http://www.computerandvideogames.com/291...[/link]

    And, yes, it's PSM3 so you might understandly presume they're biased and trying to defend the game (single format magazine are definitely biased to a certain extent IMO; it's why I no longer buy them). However, if what they wrote is true then I'd have to ask why the hell EA/Crytek thought releasing an unfinished demo would do the game any favours?!?!? After all people, rightly or wrongly, base their purchasing decisions on these playable demos and if they're not a reflection of the actual product then they can end up doing more harm than good. If a demo isn't indicative of the final product then I don't think they should release one at all.

  • menage #49 1 year ago

    @darren

    Indeed. If there's really that much difference I would have bailed on the demo completely.

  • mcmothercruncher #50 1 year ago

    In this German article, comparing PC, 360 and PS3 screenshots, the PS3 version looks noticeably flatter and duller. The lighting is certainly worse. :(

    [link url=http://www.videogameszone.de%2FCrysis-2-PS3-232045%2FNews%2FCrysis-2-Grafikvergleich-zwischen-PS3-Xbox-360-und-PC-Version-816252%2Fgalerie%2F1501686%2F&sl=de&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8]http://www.videogameszone.de%2FCrysis-2-...[/link]

  • bad09 #51 1 year ago

    "I'd have to ask why the hell EA/Crytek thought releasing an unfinished demo would do the game any favours?!?!?"

    Well they did they same with the Crysis 1 demo. The demo wasn't optimised at all for Dual core CPUs so to get an idea of how the game truthfully ran on your dual core you had to download the game....which Crytek then threw their toys out of the pram about. Go figure...

  • Esnedon #52 1 year ago

    PS3/360 comparison GIF

  • NeoKenzi #53 1 year ago

    I was expecting to see different footage or "up-to-date" footage of this link, [link url=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/291...
    ]http://www.computerandvideogames.com/291...[/link]
    this was shown awhile ago. All we can do is hope for an improvment before release.

  • Darren #54 1 year ago

    @Esendon - From that image, the PS3 version looks softer (upscaled from a lower resolution?) and more washed out colour wise but otherwise looks very similar to the Xbox 360 version IMO in terms of modelling and texturing. Of course, a static image doesn't show the framerate or how responsive the controls are though...

  • carlosdfn #55 1 year ago

    Crytek already confirmed that the demo is retail code. SP might look better but don't expect any miracles. I still don't understand why the friggin' game looks so damn blurry.

  • carlosdfn #56 1 year ago

    [link url=http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head/verdictscreen-shot-comparison/head2head-crysis-2-multiplayer-demo-screenshot-comparison/
    ]http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head/ver...[/link]

    Enough said. The difference is obvious. It's like putting your glasses on.

  • Goodfella #57 1 year ago

    Looks a bit like Red Dead Redemption all over again, PS3 version is blurry and lacking definition.

  • drumbaby #58 1 year ago

    No meaningful desire to buy a shitty port after having been promised that they would achieve parity across the consoles...actually not even parity, because at one point the PS3 version was (according to Crytek) the one running the best of the two.

    So, poke it, Crytek. I'll spend my money on something that's been better optimised for my console of choice.

  • makeamazing #59 1 year ago

    I think it will be fine, its not as crisp as i would like it, but the demo was enjoyable.... it was laggy at times though, but considering they just released the demo yesterday, i am not sure what else to expect. It seems that the PS3 version needs a bit more time to work on... which is not good considering its out next week!

  • Vlad27145 #60 1 year ago

    @tiny_Eggy

    I hadn't thought about that, it's a possibility and would definitely explain the terribly blurry images. If it turns out it's true, that article would definitely turn out into one hell of a joke.

  • Kaptac #61 1 year ago

    I think guys from Crytel are blind...

  • vizzini #62 1 year ago

    Lens of truth are complete idiots to ask which Sku of games looks “better”? The answer is rhetorical to a largely US web audience that don't have a clue what they are looking at in respect of the word “better”.

    If they insist on doing such a juvenile question, at least change it to which do you prefer the look of, ie. without quantification like the word “better” does.

    TVs intentionally have a shop-display-mode for producing an eye catching imagine, to stand out from the crowd, and this only exists because 99% consumers have no idea what they are looking at; to determine effective contrast ratios, colour accuracy or aliasing when comparing properly calibrated TVs side by side, and LoT's many question results just demonstrate that.

    Looking at the two versions, you can see that the 360 version has too much aliased edges and a sterile 3D modelling editor look of a game without much post-processing; so it is unlikely it implements (or fully implementing)the volumetric lighting that Crytek showed for Crysis 2 at siggraph last year. (imo) The guy is using reverse psychology to say they look the same, so that customers will look harder to see the differences and appreciate the volumetric lighting when they talk it up in a week one sales technical article DF.

    I still expect the final version on the PS3 to be significantly better than the 360 version from reading the siggraph paper, but it still might be a shrewd marketing move by EA to follow Black Ops “broken on PS3” for launch day setup, as it fuels more 360 sales of the game and gets more free publicity.

  • des #63 1 year ago

    Pixel counters can clearly see PS3 version running at 1024x720/or 704...measurable difference

  • blackbriar101 #64 1 year ago

    Ps3- Better lighting effects
    More responsive controls
    Better Water Effects
    Poor Framerate
    Alot of motion blur
    No screen tearing

    360- Solid Framerate
    Better Hit detection
    Less motion blur.
    Dodgy lighting.
    Screen tearing

    Those lens of nonsense screenshots are a mystery because the game while sub HD is not that blurry. Personally I like it.

  • Djimm #65 1 year ago

    Both MP demos are pretty bad. Crytek seem to have forgotten that on a console you can't back off the visual bells and whistles in order to improve framrates. The settings they've opted for are way too high, especially for multiplayer.

    They could improve the situation by getting rid of the horrible anti-aliasing and motion blur. Crytek, please go talk to Bungie/Naughtie Dog/Guerilla about how to do both properly on console. While your at it, hire some proper voice actors and re-do the audio as well.

  • vizzini #66 1 year ago

    des: Pixel counters can clearly see PS3 version running at 1024x720/or 704...measurable difference

    What in the final retail version? or just in the demo?

    screen resolution ist certainly one quantifiable difference, as would tearing & frame rate that are rumoured to be worse.

    But take metal gear solid upscaled on PS3 and compare to the cube remake(twin snakes). You wouldn't dream of saying the upscaled version looks better, because it doesn't in the areas that matter(animation, polygons per model, post-processing fx, audio, controls, cut sequences) and so the final judgement for Crysis 2 will be in weigh up all the technical details from interviews or analysed.

    Looking just at the still shots from LoT, I think the 360 version looks a little crude/sterile with aliased artefacts like the original Turok demo using DirectX, rather than the 3dfx glide renderer, but I guess it will all come out in the wash soon enough.

  • MDL199 #67 1 year ago

    I've played the demo on both and they're practically identical. I'm sure DF will do a piece on the game and list loads of geeky spec differences in favour of 360 here and PS3 there but as in most cases a non anorak gamer won't notice fuck all difference.

    Can't say I was overly impressed by the game though the movement feels really sluggish compared to the best shooters.

  • Kaminari #68 1 year ago

    It's not terrible but not transcending either. Resistance 2 looks actually much better than this.

  • inutaihanyou #69 1 year ago

    I will wait for Digital Foundry's analysis.

  • paulust2002 #70 1 year ago

    Yeah bollocks. The ps3 version has all the online problems of the xbox version along with bonus unplayable frame rate and the dire lighting dlc pack. If I wanted this level of gaming I'd play on low settings on my shit pc

  • Murton #71 1 year ago

    Seems every other game developer makes this claim these days and all of them, yes all of them fall way short of their claims. The games that do manage platform parity don't shout about it, Dead Space 2 shows now difference whatsoever except in audio, but Visceral didn't feel the need to contact a load of magazines and websites and say "get this to print, no difference between the two console versions at all, you can quote us on that" Every developer cuts corners when it comes to multiplatform development, some because they're lazy and some because they have deadlines to meet and sometimes taking a shortcut somewhere is the only way to get it done on time. Just be honest, only the enthusiasts will hear you anyway and by and large we understand what's involved so why the hyperbole?

    Also, I know that demos aren't representitive of a finished product but the differences between the demos are quite clear, are we supposed to believe that it's purely down to the way the demos have been produced and has nothing to do with the core engine at all? As long as they both work and both look good nobody is really that bothered if one has a few more pixels or the other puts out an extra frame per second, cut the BS and let the game talk for itself, you'll look much better if you do.

  • DRUNK3N-_-DRAGON #72 1 year ago

    no matter what people say, this game will be off the hook so stop fucking crying!

  • Lucodeath #73 1 year ago

    Im still waiting for 1080p at 120fps dual output. looks like Ill be upgrading my pc first.