Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
General Gaming Chat
Killzone
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Gay-Guy" data-source="post: 31477"><p>Too right!</p><p></p><p>I loved the Timespitters framerate! On ps2 the first instalment at the beginning of PS2 made me think "Wow..........are they all gonna be like this?"</p><p></p><p>I heard the only reason the Timesplitters framerate was so good was because they didn't use dynamic lighting and other stuff, unlike Halo so called <img src="http://www.therugbyforum.com/forum/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> Well whatever dynamic lightning crap they put in Halo or not the truth is it didn't make up for it. Timesplitters still looked wayyyyy too good! I would rather have a smoother framerate anyday than a stuttering one with mind blowing graphics. How can you see the so called mind blowing graphis when the frames look like a scratched DVD movie? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I am sad that so many people voted Halo as the best FPS on a console ahead of others particularly Timesplitters (the ex Goldeneye team from rage). There are too many simpletons in the world that wouldn't know what a diamond was if their toilet was made of it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gay-Guy, post: 31477"] Too right! I loved the Timespitters framerate! On ps2 the first instalment at the beginning of PS2 made me think "Wow..........are they all gonna be like this?" I heard the only reason the Timesplitters framerate was so good was because they didn't use dynamic lighting and other stuff, unlike Halo so called [img]http://www.therugbyforum.com/forum/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif[/img] Well whatever dynamic lightning crap they put in Halo or not the truth is it didn't make up for it. Timesplitters still looked wayyyyy too good! I would rather have a smoother framerate anyday than a stuttering one with mind blowing graphics. How can you see the so called mind blowing graphis when the frames look like a scratched DVD movie? I am sad that so many people voted Halo as the best FPS on a console ahead of others particularly Timesplitters (the ex Goldeneye team from rage). There are too many simpletons in the world that wouldn't know what a diamond was if their toilet was made of it. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
General Gaming Chat
Killzone
Top