Some of you may have heard the rumblings this week about IGN saying that the PS3 version of Crysis 2 is a laggy, blurry piece of crap:
“The performance of the PS3 version is pretty underwhelming. The framerate is frequently low and choppy. There are jagged lines everywhere, and shadows are especially messy. There’s a muddiness to the graphics that’s hard to stomach in the wake of the PS3′s other flagship showpieces, and worse, the variable framerate really hurts controller response.” ~IGN
What they didn't mention is that the version they're playing could be months old and have nowhere near the same amount of polish as the final PS3, or even 360 version of the game. And when you have Nathan Camarillo, the executive producer of Crysis 2 challenging people to find differences between the two, IGN credibility becomes even more questionable than it already was thanks to their horrendous review coverage of Dead Space 2. (And ya know, the whole being IGN thing.)
There's a reason we here at GR never talk smack about a game before it hits store shelves: Usually what we see are "work in progress" builds of a game, which means they're nowhere near the level of polish that the final version will have. Voices are out of sync, shading and anti-aliasing work needs to be done… things like that. What we're there to do is to take a look at all the cool things and assume the crap will be taken out before it gets to you, the consumer. If and when the game comes out and that crap is still there, we let you know through a scathing, no holds barred review.
What IGN is doing here is taking a look at a canvas where the artist has laid out the base for his piece and calling it horrible before looking at the finished piece. It's a shameful grab for attention from a site who's reputation has always been questionable at best.