Face-Off: Crysis 2

By Richard Leadbetter Published 24 March, 2011

Suit to kill.

Page 1 of 3
Xbox 360 PlayStation 3
Disc Size 5.5GB 7.44GB
Install 5.5GB (optional) 2895MB (mandatory)
Surround Support Dolby Digital Dolby Digital, DTS, 5.1LPCM, 7.1LPCM

Still one of the most resource-intensive games when run on max settings, the original Crysis ranks as one of the most visually impressive games ever made - an extraordinary technological statement from a developer dedicated to a unique "maximum game" ethos.

News that Crytek would be embracing cross-platform development and working with Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 was met with concern from its fans: would the PC game be left behind as Crytek refocused its resources on technologically outdated consoles? Could the Microsoft and Sony platforms be cajoled into running code designed for massively more powerful hardware?

We had our doubts, but on balance, Crysis 2 on console is an exceptional release, only held back from true greatness by being a touch rough around the edges: glitches, LOD pop-ins, some really impactful frame-rate dips... compromise is an inevitability when working with consoles, but which platform is better suited to running CryEngine 3? Here's where you find out.

Let's get busy and break out the comparison assets, kicking off with this extended head-to-head video, accompanied by a colossal 720p comparison gallery.

Crysis 2: Xbox 360 vs. PS3. Use the full-screen button for 720p res, or click on the link below for a larger window.

You might notice a difference in the aspect ratio of the HUD between the two versions of Crysis 2, with the text and other elements being considerably wider on PS3 than they are on the Xbox 360 release. The reason here is fairly straightforward: while Crysis 2 runs at 1152x720 resolution on the Microsoft platform, PS3 operates at a base resolution of 1024x720. The final framebuffer is then sent out to RSX, where a bilinear upscale gives us the usual 1280x720 output - we see exactly the same differences (along with the reasons behind it) on Starbreeze's Chronicles of Riddick. Updated: Erroneous 360 resolution now corrected.

In short, then, Xbox 360 benefits from a 12.5 per cent resolution boost over the PlayStation 3 version of the game. While it is true that the action generally looks clearer and not quite so blurred on the Xbox 360, it's also the case that when the game is in full flow, the amount of post-processing effects in play, including camera and object-based motion blur, tends to equalise the visuals somewhat. Quite why there is a resolution difference at all is intriguing. Having fewer pixels to process obviously helps reduce fill-rate concerns, but curiously, notes left within the config files suggest that RAM was also a consideration: apparently 14MB of memory is saved by dropping res (which seems to suggest a hell of a lot of internal buffers being used to compose each frame).

Another aspect that lessens the impact of the resolution difference is CryEngine 3's chosen anti-aliasing technique. Halo: Reach-style temporal anti-aliasing is being used on objects a set distance away from the camera, with an edge-detect/blur mechanism in play for elements close to the player. Both of these techniques add further blurring to the visual effects chain, and again serve to make the resolution gain on Xbox 360 less noticeable in the heat of the action. More resolution is obviously a good thing and there is an overall feeling that the image on Xbox 360 is cleaner and crisper, but only with a direct A to B comparison do you actually feel you're missing anything on the PS3 rendition of the game, which still looks very impressive.

Indeed, other elements of the visual make-up of the game do their job in helping to bridge the difference. For example, check out this shot: texture filtering on the tarmac looks better on the PS3 - base resolution isn't always the paramount element in image quality, something we touched upon in the Alan Wake sub-HD debate.

'Face-Off: Crysis 2' Screenshot filtering-360
'Face-Off: Crysis 2' Screenshot filtering-ps3

While Xbox 360 takes a commanding lead in terms of the raw number of pixels being generated, PS3 appears to function with a higher degree of texture filtering.

Bearing in mind the rich range of cutting-edge visual effects in CryEngine 3, there's been plenty of speculation that certain graphical features would be better suited to particular platforms. Certainly, early tech demos of CryEngine 3 did seem to suggest that lighting in particular wasn't quite so refined on the PlayStation 3, while some pre-release shots suggested that light-shafts/god rays were not present on Xbox 360.

The reality is that Crytek has done an impressive job in matching the engine spec across both platforms, and even where its own config files suggest substantial differences (for example in the rendering of water effects, where the PS3 setting seems to dominate 360's), we don't really see any kind of substantial difference in the final game: the chances are that some very low variables in the .cfg files may simply invoke hardware-specific code - perhaps the water utilises 360's tessellator, for example.

'Face-Off: Crysis 2' Screenshot godrays-360
'Face-Off: Crysis 2' Screenshot godrays-ps3
'Face-Off: Crysis 2' Screenshot water-360
'Face-Off: Crysis 2' Screenshot water-ps3

Concerns that some visual effects would be realised to higher levels of precision on certain console platforms prove to be mostly unfounded - Crytek's claims on cross-platform parity are quite robust.

Resolution and texture-filtering aside, there are some differences in the presentation of the two console versions of Crysis 2, but these are mostly incidental effects that have only a tiny effect on the game's overall look, and present no impact whatsoever on the core gameplay experience. But for the record, let's take a closer look at what our comparisons unveiled.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (305) Latest comment 9 months ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • cianchristopher #1 11 months ago

    ZOMG!!! WTF!!!

    THIS IS AN OUTRAGE, I DEMAND A RECOUNT!!!!

  • Widge #2 11 months ago

    Not exactly a glowing “hey developers, drop UE3 in favour of CryEngine 3!” breakdown.

  • StooMonster #3 11 months ago

    At last we are getting to see strengths and weaknesses of each console played out in games. Neither of them is best at everything, they have very similar performance, and the worst of both worlds is games engines working to lowest common denominator in both or a one-sided version where one is clearly better.

    Saying that, I've pre-order this on PC (although I enjoyed the demo on Xbox too) so roll on Saturday Face-Off including PC.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 14:46

  • rayscoota #4 11 months ago

    Please change this site to Console Gamer Europe, you always face off the 2 consoles without the pc, I dont care that you have decided to do a tack on this weekend with the pc version.

  • Eraserhead #5 11 months ago

    In order to save everyone a lot of time and effort, here's a condensed version of how this thread will pan out:

    RICHARD "M$" LEADBETTER IS SO BIASED! PS3 ROOLS!

    RICHARD "$ONY" LEADBETTER IS SO BIASED! XBOX ROX LOL!

    Graphics don't matter anyway, it's all about the gameplay.

    lol you would say that you xbot/SDF sock

    (repeat ad nauseam)

  • oceanmotion #6 11 months ago

    Don't like the sound of the frame rate at times, that really breaks a game for me.

  • sfp_noodle #7 11 months ago

    In short - Get the PC version even though we're too lazy to offer opinion until the weekend despite it being the strongest version.

    Don't have a PC? Let controller preference, friends list, free MP/paid for MP, fanboyism decide your choice of purchase.

  • tiny_Eggy #8 11 months ago

    I would love to see a Crysis 1 vs Crysis 2 face off, I know the games can't really be compared but you know, just for shits and giggles.

  • MidianGTX #9 11 months ago

    I bought the PS3 version knowing the differences between the two... and playing it right now? I couldn't give a crap. This is one of the best looking games on any platform however you play it. Sure there are differences, but they're so small they're barely worth paying attention to. Make your descision based on controller/online service/friends/general console peferences.

  • Recarnate #10 11 months ago

    360 Crysis 2 - A
    PS3 Crysis 2 - A-

    Correct?

  • carlosdfn #11 11 months ago

    IGN bashed the PS3 version in their review saying that it looked a lot worse than the 360 version.
    Gamesradar said the 3D (on the 360 no less) was more impressive than killzone 3's.

    Thank God we have Digital Foundry to debunk these amateurish gaming sites.

    That being said I'm disappointed with the game's performance on both machines. It actually went down to 16fps sometimes! I mean, come on, that's ridiculous.

  • E2K #12 11 months ago

    resolution boost of 25% is not true, if it were, then the xbox would be operating above a full 1280*720p framebuffer
    when the ps3 3d resolution boost is well above 25%, you fail to mention any numbers.. curious.

    Also the 360 has no anisotropic filtering, this is evident in almost every screenshot.
    Then you fail to mention that the 360 has a lot of textures which are lower resolution. I don't know if this is duo to streaming bugs, disc space, or whatnot, but as you avoid it I'll think it is due to disc limitations?

    Another thing is the PS3 has 'more lit areas', this is evident in the intro sequence and can be demonstrated by this comparison shot:
    [link url=http://img217.imageshack.us/i/textureresolutionandlig. jpg/
    ]http://im g217.imageshack.us/i/textureres...[/link]

    (among texture resolution)



    These things aside, I complement your article, it is the first "neutral" article i read in a loooooong time.

  • siro #13 11 months ago

    German Eurogamer even scored the 360 version one higher, that's how big they thought the difference to be. (9 on Xbox, 8 on PS3).

    Sure a good game on either system though.

  • onyxbox #14 11 months ago

    Sounds like there's nothing in it.

    This is great news.

  • Goodfella #15 11 months ago

    Yes, sounds extremely close. Curious how when frame rate gets really bad it's worse on the 360 but the PS3 frame rate is generally a tad lower overall.

    Anyway, PC version for me, if I get it at all.

  • Badassbab #16 11 months ago

    This is what all PS3 fanboys say when 360 wins a H2H....

    'I'm getting the PC version!'

  • FeralGamer #17 11 months ago

    I've been playing Crysis 2 on PS3 for a couple days now and it plays well. I really don't notice any game breaking issues like low FPS or many graphical hiccups. The game is amazing. The nanosuit is a nice feature with different powers and such, graphics are beautiful and at times, breathtaking.

  • byakuya83 #18 11 months ago

    visuals aren't everything but performance is important.

    why don't developers consider toning down the special effects to get a game running at 1080p and 60 fps?

  • E2K #19 11 months ago

    Richard, your own screenshot shows the PS3 using global illumination, over the 360 version:

    [link url=http://images.eurogamer.net/as sets/articles//a/1/3/4/2/7/9/3/lighting2_360.bmp.jpg
    ]http://im ages.eurogamer.net/assets/artic...[/link]
    [link url=http://images.eurogamer.net/as sets/articles//a/1/3/4/2/7/9/3/lighting2_ps3.bmp.jpg
    ]http://im ages.eurogamer.net/assets/artic...[/link]

    to the right you see the light "bouncing" off the white board, illumination the desk, but failing to do so in the 360 version.

    Can you confirm this? I have more screenshots demonstrating this effect.

  • Darren #20 11 months ago

    A moderately interesting read that might have been better had it forgone the (IMO, useless) 3D section in favour of including the PC version in the face-off.

    Still, the console versions from what I've seen of them and from playing the 360 demo seem very impressive considering the age of the hardware. When CryEngine 3 was announced for the consoles I was doubtful that Crysis could run on them without severe compromises. I was wrong. Yeah, the framerate isn't as good as other FPSs and there's glitches aplenty from what I've read but let's not let them distract from what Crytek have been able to achieve. Although I'm getting the PC version (hopefully it arrived today), I'm looking forward to playing the Xbox 360 version as well.

  • hiscore #21 11 months ago

    "By and large, the look of the game is entirely consistent between both Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions. However, there do appear to be some isolated instances where lighting appears bugged or flawed in the PS3 version, as the brace of shots above demonstrates."

    You use "bugged" and "flawed" for lighting that is decided by the developer to be the best solution at that particular scene. Ask 100 people about those comparison pictures on page 2 and I guarantee you very few would even suggest the PS3 ones to be bugged or flawed.

    Problem here is: you accept 360 as generally being the platform to beat. Even when you admit PS3 outbeating 360 at some points, I cannot help but read your article as a "Buy this game on Xbox 360" advert.

    On LensofTruth, we read there is vsync enabled on PS3 and not on 360. Here, you state that both versions enable vsync. 2% screen tearing is still screen tearing in my opinion and it's a BIG achievement of Crytek to keep this enabled the entire game and still beating 360 during combat scenes. It seems 360 outperforms during non-combat scenes. Well, I thought this was a shooter, not a screen saver.

  • Darren #22 11 months ago

    I should also add that I found the horizontal stretching of the visuals and, especially the HUD elements and text, to be very noticeable in the PS3 version from the HD YouTube videos I've watched. Circles look oval for example. That would definitely annoy me. Strange that the developers didn't overlay the text and HUD over the top of scaled image to make it less obvious but I guess memory was very tight on the PS3.

  • obidanshinobi #23 11 months ago

    I wish they would mention controller response as this was the factor that made me get Vanquish on the 360 instead of the PS3.
    Will be getting this on the 360 as the control pad is much better for FPS IMO.
    The triggers on the 360 pad own L2 and R2 on the PS3 controller for FPS and driving games, same with the thumbsticks IMO.
    Do prefer the PS3 pad for games like Castlevania n God of War though.

  • aidey6 #24 11 months ago

    However, there's the nagging feeling that a few more months in development could perhaps have ironed out the issues both versions of the game have

    But they already had the game put back from end of 2010 to first quarter 2011, EA gave them more than enough time to deliver, let's hope with their next game it's better optimised or maybe there's updates in Crysis 2 to reduce the slowdown (fingers crossed)

  • N2O1990 #25 11 months ago

    @E2K

    please don't use LoT's picture because thats not true
    http://i.imgur.com/ZDTzn.jpg
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 15:26

  • gillri #26 11 months ago

    im staggered at the hardware to graphics output ratio on consoles, I mean 360 hardware is almost 6 years old!!

    I will get the PC version but considering the hardware difference im jealous

  • spekkeh #27 11 months ago

    So, equally impressive eh? I think we can finally bury the fanboy hatchet and enjoy the game for what it is.

    ...

    lol just kidding, fire away neckbeards!

  • mashk #28 11 months ago

    Let's have a whipround and get E2K laid, then all these differences he's on about will seem so trivial.

  • intpleeus #29 11 months ago

    I'll be impressed when Crytek get it running on the Wii.

    ;P

  • E2K #30 11 months ago

    N2O1990: your screenshot demonstrates the blurry texture, plus the unlit area, compare it to the lot-ps3 shot you fool
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 15:34

  • Widge #31 11 months ago

    DF HAS SPOKEN

  • MaoZedong #32 11 months ago

    Post deleted at 09:40:08 17-12-2011

  • digoutyoursoul #33 11 months ago

    i think a game like this calls sonys bluff, while i think the likes of uncharted series, god of war etc are brilliant games it shows you the whole "impossible" on other platforms "the blu ray" etc is a bit wide of the mark. i mean david cage was saying how heavy rain is not possible on 360 yet crytek have provided a product that beats it from a visual standpoint. so what happens now? how are sony going to look if codename kingdoms is a visually stunning looking game as their PR machine keeps saying the best graphical titles are not possible on Microsofts machine yet Crysis 2 is a spanner in the works to these claims.

    i'll be getting 360 version first and ps3 version later on probably.

  • IronCladChicken #34 11 months ago

    @Retro_Ghost
    While I agree on the fan-boi level - I've always felt being a gamer was about enjoying the game experience, not the xbox vs PS bull.... Though given how the Wii is treated here, I think I'm in the minority.

    As a geeky tech-head I am interested in how developers put together their engines, what choices they make for each system, how that compares, wether it's a good choice or bad, etc.. So I'm generally interesed in the articles, even though I'll never own most of the games covered.

  • Darren #35 11 months ago

    @hiscore - As mentioned in the article the screen tearing in the 360 build of Crysis 2 occurs at the top of the screen and so is virtually unnoticeable. Some won't see it at all as it is the overscan area which will be hidden on some older non-1080p HDTVs. The device used to measure tearing detects this regardless but the reality is that tearing at the top of the screen is far less obvious and annoying than if it were, say, in the middle, in direct eye-sight.

    At just 2% tearing wouldn't be that much of a big deal even if it was further down the screen though but at the top it is a total non-issue IMO (GTA IV was like this too). That's coming from someone who loathes screen tearing with a passion. This isn't tearing on the same scale as Saints Row 2 or Splinter Cell: Double Agent on the 360 for example, it's so slight that I wouldn't even class the game as one with tearing!

  • Spydy #36 11 months ago

    Canny trust a DF comparison after the travesty that was the Bulletstorm head-to-head.

  • NotSoSlim #37 11 months ago

    Christ fanboys claiming victory when both versions have pros and cons...pathetic.

    Also this whole best looking game is opinion and nothing more yet fanboys taking it as gospel. Get over it.

  • bad09 #38 11 months ago

    I hope when EG finally get around to looking at the PC version we'll see what most who played Crysis 1 actually wants to know. How it stands up as a sequel to the landmark 1st game.

    I know it's not really EGs fault with EA licking at the MS arse and sending out the 360 version for reviews but I couldn't care less about the console pissing contests we are seeing everywhere, I want to know how it compares to the original and if the focus on console versions has indeed compromised the amazing original.

  • Retro_ #39 11 months ago

    I'm really happy that both consoles get a decent version, well done CryEngine 3 :-)

  • E2K #40 11 months ago

    I would recommend the 360 version though, in case of multiplatform owners.
    PS3 has too many exclusives this year, so it's nice to get a new 360 game once in a while, wouldn't you agree?

    The differences are negligible, although I am really curious as to how the 360 would perform with anisotropic filtering instead of bilineair, and also how the ps3 would perform when rendering 1152*720 as opposed to 1024*720, etcetera.

    Myself, I'll get the PS3 version of Crysis, even if the 360 version was significantly better because I am a fanboy and that's how I roll.

  • gjgjg #41 11 months ago

    Interesting as crysis 1 was a PC benchmark for so long, will be good to see how it compares to consoles on sequal... however I get the feeling this will be a particularly heated flamyfanboy benchmark...
    For now though looks like ill be xboxing it. Thanks DF
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 15:42

  • Goodfella #42 11 months ago

    This is what all PS3 fanboys say when 360 wins a H2H....

    'I'm getting the PC version!'

    a) Who said it won?

    b) Why would a PS3 fanboy get the PC version?

    c) You're an idiot.

  • Dave52 #43 11 months ago

    I'm not sure what to make of that. This seems to suggest that the Xbox is crisper visually and the better performer, but in the next breath it says that the frame rate drops are nearly unplayable in places and the PS3 handles things better. It's a contradiction...

    The lighting bugs highlighted on the PS3 will go unnoticed unless you play them side by side...

    I think, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter which one you go for...

  • StolenGlory #44 11 months ago

    Honestly would all you pricks whining and moaning about the lack of a PC SKU in this face off please just shut the fuck up.

    As of right now, such a comparison wouldn't yield much in the way of useful data or analysis because the Dx11 functionality is not currently up and running yet.

  • solidmgsnake #45 11 months ago

    Consoles need an upgrade already. Add more memory and a better gpu. Call it the PS3+, 360+ - Whatever it doesnt have to be a completely new revolutionary console that'll cost up the ass. It'll even be backwards compatiable w/ all the games and even make them perform better. EVEN the new games will work on the old ps3 or 360- yur just gonna get a better performing game on the newer consoles. Just give it a little more horsepower. Get our games to 60fps or 1080p- hell, both! and we can all stfu and be happy

  • ronuds #46 11 months ago

    @ Dave52

    What it's saying is that in a few scenarios both framerates chug pretty badly, but in such scenarios the PS3 handles better.

    Under normal circumstances, the 360's framerate has the overall advantage. Not much of one, though.

  • randompanda #47 11 months ago

    I'm still trying to finish Dead Space 2! I'll have to rent this at the rate i'm going...

  • Deckard1 #48 11 months ago

    Ok they're the same, can all you fucking fanboys shut up about it now. Jesus, games forums have been a fucking embarrassment the past few days.

  • Dave52 #49 11 months ago

    @ronuds - this is probably the case. I think they both look amazing, and it's down to your controller preference and friend list. I'm desperately trying to resist buying this as I'm trying to save a little cash but, fuck it - we all know I'm gonna cave...

  • MJHaylett #50 11 months ago

    want to know my reasoning for buying a multiplatform game on PS3? Sure you do. I don't pay Microsoft a yearly subscription to access half the content on a game disc that I buy so if I want to play online I can - for no extra charge. Seeing as I play approx 1-2 hrs of MP per game bought before I get bored of it it makes no sense for me to pay Microsoft.

    There is my reason for buying games on PS3 over 360 - access to content - not blocky shadows or the like :D

  • camo_kill #51 11 months ago

    I'll be getting it for my PS3 and unchecking the 1080i/1080p boxes in my display calibration. Hopefully will make it slightly crisper (it did for FIFA 10, CODBLOPS, Bioshock).

  • roz123 #52 11 months ago

    There is no point including PC as even if the graphics are worse its still the best version.
    Dedicated Servers mean less lag
    Better controls for pros
    Mods
    A Map Editor
    More customisable
    Cheaper
    The list goes on.

  • T3TSUO #53 11 months ago

    So let me get this straight.
    It has better graphics and textures on ps3.
    Runs better on ps3.
    Has no vsync issues on ps3
    Just had to drop resolution slightly to get proper 3d working.
    Is that about right?

  • mr2ange #54 11 months ago

    @Rayscoota

    "Please change this site to Console Gamer Europe, you always face off the 2 consoles without the pc, I dont care that you have decided to do a tack on this weekend with the pc version. "

    To be honest do you think its worth comparing the PC to the consoles? everyone who is even considering getting this for the PC easily has a machine more capable than the consoles. This game like the previous - was BUILT FOR PC... of course it will be better.

  • carlitoswagon #55 11 months ago

    Winning

  • GooseUK #56 11 months ago

    So, both similar. Good.

    However the answer to the question 'can it run crysis?' Seems to me to be - no not properly - 15-20fps is not acceptable during action. If I was getting that on PC I would reduce my graphics options down.

  • M1chl #57 11 months ago

    I am impress with this game on X360 very much. I don't even think, that this machine is capable of such a great visuals.

  • Ord #58 11 months ago

    Mr Leadbetter, could you please stop doing these fanboy fuelling articles and do something awesome, like bringing back Maximum magazine? Cheers! ;)

  • kirankara #59 11 months ago

    @carlitoswago, BI-winning mate

  • MizzouGaming #60 11 months ago

    PLAYSTATION 3 "Its really not that bad" should be Sony's new PS3 slogan.

  • Bagpuss #61 11 months ago

    "The question now is whether the PC version of the game manages to power past these problems"

    Lol..why is this even being asked?.....

    A mid range DX9 gfx card from 2006 or better can run it a faster frame rate and higher resolution than these kiddie consoles.

  • kirankara #62 11 months ago

    @retro, its an interesting question, that kinda begs further enquiry

  • Darren #63 11 months ago

    @Retro_Ghost - V-sync isn't always on in the 360 version that's why; it disables v-sync temporarily if the frame takes too long render as this would impact on the framerate.

    This dynamic v-sync method was first introduced in Gears of War and has been used in many games since. If it wasn't used then games that have minor tearing issues such as Gears of War etc would tear as badly as games such as Saints Row 2 which don't use v-sync at all by default (you can select it in the game menu though at the cost of a lower framerate).

    As for why 1154x720 is described in the article as full 720p (i.e. 1280x720)... beats me!
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 16:42

  • ronuds #64 11 months ago

    Is there evidence besides some guy on a forum said so that the 360 version is sub 720p?

  • Walkerj #65 11 months ago

    One thing is odd. When comparing the lighting the article says the ps3 is behaving oddly. I have the pc version, and it's a match in lighting those same areas. it's actually the 360 that is behaving oddly, not properly rendering lights in those scenes. Look at the pics again, the 360 is either too bright (floor pic) or the 360 fails to display the hallway lights around the scientist.

  • TitusCrow #66 11 months ago

    I think some perspective is needed here. Both the ps3 and the xb360 (of which I own both) have merits and de-merits. We should also agree on the fact that, a single platform development can devote more resources to using all the particular tricks of that particular platform: thus on single platforms we nearly always see a better result and a higher optimisation. This part is, or should not be disputed, by anyone of sufficient maturity to understand such things.

    It is a significant achievement on the architecture of both systems to have something of this visual fidelity even running, never mind running at a playable rate for the most part. When both platforms were released and the 1st tech demos of Crysis were appearing, I’m sure no one would have expected to have that sort of look grace their consoles. Now five years on we are into the very mature iterations of the games, and as such they are pulling resources from both consoles and using every trick learned to keep expanding the visual fidelity.

    I think Richard is right; maybe 6 months of development time would have produced a 30fps experience on both consoles. Why this window was chosen for release you would have to ask the publisher; I’m sure they have many compelling reasons for such, none of them to the advantage of the gamer. Such is the world we live in where economic determinism trump’s all. I know when I played the multi-player demo on the xb360 it felt ridiculously smooth, it felt 60fps smooth, through some very clever motion blurring tech. While you do get the slight input lag that comes with 30fps vs. 60 it did feel pretty great and looked incredibly impressive. I did not download the PS3 version of the multiplayer demo because I had for all intents and purposes already seen enough to make my purchase – on steam.

    As someone with a high end gaming PC, as well as the other platforms, that was always my platform of choice. Nearly always for First person shooters I find that the input dies hard and I grew up a mouse and keyboard man for this Genre. Other genre’s I prefer on the console’s and I show no disrespect to any platform as they all have strengths and weaknesses, I just wish this would be acknowledged a bit more.
    A top end gaming PC will tear any console apart at this time in the life cycle. This is a FACT, if you do not understand it then; you simply have not educated yourself on the strengths and weaknesses of the platforms. Of course to get this machine costs more, it can be more problematic and you have to bother with a bunch of things that do not come into the equation on the console – where for the most part games just work.

    You get more frames per second, usually many more if you are cutting edge; you get (usually) higher resolution textures and (sometimes) they even throw in some of the newer direct X 10 and 11 tricks (not as much as we might like...) as well as getting to decide what screen resolution and fidelity of image you wish to accept vs. Frame rate. So you have more flexibility of choice. These flame wars are growing dull and a reality check should kick in maybe?
    This would normally be the time when companies were gearing up for the next generations of consoles, due to many factors this is not the case this generation; so we must accept the fact that the longer the generation goes the more the gulf between consoles and PC’s in pure horsepower, will become.

    The interesting point will be when people can clearly buy a readymade PC that blows their console out of the water, at a price point that they can no longer ignore. Are we there? We are getting close and I am reading more rumbles of discontent from console owners who flat out say “that is the PC version, the console one will never look like that”
    I just thought someone should try and take a neutral stance and make people understand the situation. I’m sure many of you understand all of this and more, but there it is. Also on a person note I would have liked the PC comparison out today as well just for interest’s sake. We are all gamers and we all want the best games out there, I think a ubiquitous platform would benefit the gamer, far more than these mega corporations trying to inspire brand loyalty to a thing which is only a conduit for entertainment.

  • Smoped #67 11 months ago

    1. Your console sucks!
    2. No! Yours does!
    3. Why compare these two when it's clear the PC version is superior in every way.

    A summary of each and every DF comparison comments section.

  • Bagpuss #68 11 months ago

    "A low/mid range end gaming PC will tear any console apart at this time in the life cycle. "

    Corrected for accuracy.....a Ł400-Ł500 PC has been able to do that for the last 2yrs......

  • Dogs-not-Gods #69 11 months ago

    I don't give a rat's ass which one 'won'. Shopto kindly delivered my copy a day early today so I'll be cranking up the 360 tonight and having a blast. Just as someone who bought the PS3 version will be doing exactly the same. All power to us.

  • kirankara #70 11 months ago

    is that what they describe as soft vsynch darren?

  • McWilly #71 11 months ago

    So, what about the missing ssao in the PS3 version? It's clear as day from the very first images in the article. How come this wasn't mentioned?

  • kirankara #72 11 months ago

    @ronuds, i think its cause the demo was analysed to be running at 1154x720p

  • ronuds #73 11 months ago

    Ok, fair enough. But they've obviously done a lot to the game since the demo version, so I don't know why it's so absurd to believe they upped the resolution a touch as well.

  • inutaihanyou #74 11 months ago

    So...what version should i buy?

  • Pasco #75 11 months ago

    "In conclusion, it's fair to say that Crytek has done enough to prove that Crysis can run on consoles - either of them in fact - and certainly the issues the game has in terms of bizarre glitches, performance drops, geometry pop-in and such-like are hardly exclusive to one platform."

    How much does framerate have to drop and how many pop-ups, glitches and visible level of detail lines does a game has to have in order for you to say that it just doesn't run properly? 5 FPS perhaps?

  • Machiavellian #76 11 months ago

    Not exactly a glowing “hey developers, drop UE3 in favour of CryEngine 3!” breakdown.

    Nope it isn't but as a first try on consoles it does show that Crytek came to play. With UE3 as the only competitor unless you are producing your game on Bethesda, Cryengine 3 does give developers options. I am sure Crytek engineers are hard at work making improvements so seeing where they go from today should be great.

  • Lucodeath #77 11 months ago

    About to order crysis 2 for the xbox no ps3, xbox no ps3. Sod knows Ill toss a coin.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 17:17

  • cianchristopher #78 11 months ago

    @ronuds: Ok, fair enough. But they've obviously done a lot to the game since the demo version, so I don't know why it's so absurd to believe they upped the resolution a touch as well.

    I don't know of any game that significantly improved from its demo to the retail version, except for God of War 3 (and that's because the demo was from June '09, whereas the retail version came out 9 months later in March '10).

    Do you really think that Crytek have been able to significantly improve the technical aspects of their game in the three weeks since the demo? I don't!

  • Machiavellian #79 11 months ago

    In short - Get the PC version even though we're too lazy to offer opinion until the weekend despite it being the strongest version.

    Or maybe it just takes time to do all 3 systems and gamers should stop being snot nosed children and be patience. Since the review already said get the PC version, what do you really need more than that.

  • BIGJOEJGDE #80 11 months ago

    After watching the vids and looking at the screenshots it appears everything but the resolution and frame rate is better on PS3,and when forcing my PS3 to output at 720p and letting my tv upscale the image to 1080p it looks even less blurry.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 17:24

  • Feanor #81 11 months ago

    "However, there are parts of the game that seem to be brutally unoptimised, bringing the performance level crashing down to the point where the afflicted sections become almost unplayable - a variable 15-20FPS update in an intense fire-fight is hugely disorientating, and this makes Crysis 2 one of the most inconsistent performers released in recent times."

    PC version it is then. Or maybe the 360 version when it's $20.

  • DrStrangelove #82 11 months ago

    Eurogamer.de gave the PS3 version a -1 score disadvantage because, they claimed, DF told them the PS3 version had significant framerate issues compared to X360.

    Good to know how reliable that shit is.

  • Cjail #83 11 months ago

    @ Walkerj
    A friend of mine has both the PC & PS3 version and said to me the same thing!

  • Astro-Creature #84 11 months ago

    I'm playing Goldeneye on my N64.

  • ronuds #85 11 months ago

    @ cianchristopher

    Who knows how old the code was for the demo. DF mentioned themselves on page 1 how there were many differences from the last time they saw the game.

    So, while I do agree with you that typically games don't improve, this game could be an exception.

    Also, for everyone nitpicking about framerate or saying "Crysis 2 doesn't really run on consoles" - do you know of ANY game that runs perfectly? I sure as hell don't.

    Not only that, but the problems mentioned shoudn't be too difficult to fix. Crysis 2 runs on consoles and it runs just fine. I can attest to that myself.

  • Enkeixpress #86 11 months ago

    So there ya have it.. Xbox 360 version wins in terms of performance & looks.

    PS3 = 1024x720

    Xbox 360 = 1280x720

    Higher frame rate on X360 as well..
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 17:50

  • Progguitarist #87 11 months ago

    A great article. I feel comfortable buying it for the PS3 knowing it doesn't run like shit. Of course if I had a monster PC

  • Progguitarist #88 11 months ago

    A great article. I feel comfortable buying it for the PS3 knowing it doesn't run like shit. Of course if I had a monster PC Id go with that version.

  • bladdard #89 11 months ago

    Well pull down my pants and call me a pee shooter my statement that the PS3 version was a buggy, jerky mess seems to be unfounded, I really shouldn't listen to people on the internets. Sorry Crytek for calling you a bunch of lying bastards it seems you've done a fair job.

    Now back to the fanboy stoking - nowhere does leadbetter say this "great looking game" sets new console game standard, I'd suggest UC2 is still the benchmark and console graphics king.

    /*sits back, sets F5 to auto and awaits the shitstorm*/

  • Bagpuss #90 11 months ago

    "Of course if I had a monster PC "

    Oh FFS...how many times....YOU DON'T NEED A MONSTER PC TO RUN THIS GAME OR ANY OTHER CONSOLE PORT.......

    People are still in the mindset that you need to spend Ł1000 upwards to play these ports, i could build you a PC costing half that, which will run it at 1080p resolution and near 60fps......

    PC Case Ł35
    PSU Ł50
    Mobo Ł60
    500 GB Hdrive Ł30
    Windows 7 OEM Ł80
    4Gb Ram Ł30
    Phenom II 955 Quad Core CPU Ł95
    Nvidia 560 or ATI 6950 Ł190
    DVD Drive Ł20


    1080p @ 60fps for Ł 550.....
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 18:08

  • bladdard #91 11 months ago

    @Bagpuss

    You're correct my Ł900 laptop runs this no probs. :)

  • dsmx #92 11 months ago

    My PC is worth less that 400 pounds at it will run crysis 2 no problem why do people still think it costs a fortune to have a gaming PC?

  • kirankara #93 11 months ago

    cause we dont have another 400 pounds plus spare??? so thats a fortune when u havent got it

  • ronuds #94 11 months ago

    Now back to the fanboy stoking - nowhere does leadbetter say this "great looking game" sets new console game standard, I'd suggest UC2 is still the benchmark and console graphics king.

    Ummmmm...

    "The crucial thing is that both are phenomenally attractive games, producing effects quite different and in many ways more advanced than anything we've seen elsewhere on console. We all wanted Crysis on console to be an event, a showcase release: by and large, Crytek has delivered, and those cutting edge visuals are backed by a truly impressive game design."

    Producing effects quite different and in many ways more advanced.

    I'm no dictionary.com, but those words all put together say the opposite.

  • Goodfella #95 11 months ago

    @ Bagpuss

    You forgot a keyboard and mouse. :p

    Seriously though, you're right, you can build a superb rig that will last a good few years for Ł500-Ł600.

  • ATNR1 #96 11 months ago

    Ok for those pc owners and others who wonders who cares about which version is the better, it's us non pc playing multi plat gamers, that is who. WE CARE! And now I am not so sure which version to get.

  • rayscoota #97 11 months ago

    Maximum Console LOL

  • dsmx #98 11 months ago

    Cost of getting a PC that can play most games out there at the moment is about 400-450 if you shop wisely, cost of getting a cheap laptop which most people need anyway is 300 pounds and getting a console an xbox 360 is around 150 pounds. My maths says that most people are perfectly able to afford it.

  • bladdard #99 11 months ago

    @Ronuds

    It starts. ;)

  • kirankara #100 11 months ago

    problem with ur maths is that they already have those two products and wont get back what they paid for it, and secondly, they still will need a laptop , even if they sell them and have a gaming rig.Plus theres games theyd still want to play on 360/ps3 anyway

    @ronuds

    whilst there are some truly magnificent parts , there other parts that dont bewilder as much (apparently, as i havent played it lol, source =bit tech review, which says its mix of amazing and unacceptable visually) saying it was middle of road ultimately

    they rated kz3 higher still if u look back at what they said about that, and theyre pc snobs too lol
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 18:25

  • toa_boa #101 11 months ago

    Letting verdict being verdict etc - it's totally cool once seing the Xbox rise to the PS3's graphical challenge. Nice to see some competition back in the gfx area on consoles.

    Hopefully there's still time in this generation for a good load of CryEngine 3 titles.

  • Badassbab #102 11 months ago

    Goodfella
    Post 44

    I'm not trying to be funny nor offend your sensibilities but it's what I see all the time on Digital Foundy or Lens of Truth. If the PS3 wins then it's 'Oh yeah PS3 for me, yeah, definately, PS3' but if the 360 wins then suddenly the exact same person would say oh 'I'm getting it for the PC cause that's the best version'. There are a lot of PS3 fans who claim to be neutral but it's easy to see past it. I've read your past comments and they point to a strong PS3 bias, which is fair enough.

    As for who won according to this particular H2H, the 5th to last paragraph did it for me.

  • ronuds #103 11 months ago

    @ bladdard

    No, I'm not going there. Just pointing out how they somewhat said exactly what you believed they didn't. Although, I'm sure some will choose to translate the meaning of the words differently, it seems pretty clear to me what they were saying.

    I'm not trying to judge what the best looking game is - because that's always going to be a matter of opinion. There is no definitive answer, no matter how long you argue it.

  • Goodfella #104 11 months ago

    @ Badassbab

    Fair enough if that's your experience, I just didn't want to be pigeon holed into that category.

    I play all FPS games on the PC where possible (I prefer mouse keyboard) and if I get the game the PC version is the only one I'd consider.

  • Sgt_Petter #105 11 months ago

    I would like it if he had a test where he tried to simulate the quality from the consoles on a PC, and what settings he would end up with, also some screenshots to show the difference between console performance and maximum PC performance.

  • mumblyjoe #106 11 months ago

    What happened to personnal preference? Any who buys a game purely cause this asshat says it runs 2fps better on one console or the other is an idiot

  • TAPNGO #107 11 months ago

    after this impressive effort im looking forward to Kingdoms game for the 360.

  • coolbritannia #108 11 months ago

    Badassbab describing Goodfella to a T, to the point where even Goodfella recognises himself.

  • miiiguel #109 11 months ago

    The PC vs console debate again...

    I believe most people who prefers to use a closed system for their ludic activities do it mainly because they just want to use the box to play the games, like, buying the game at a shop or online and know exactly what to expect at no effort at all (aside from inserting the DVD into the drive). I don't believe it's a matter of price, generally. You can't just buy a PC and a couple of video-games, get home, hook it to your HDTV and start playing just by plugging a couple of cables - that's a console.

    Of course there are people who don't mind having a PC on the living room (still don't understand how the mouse works if one's on the sofa), or spend the time hiding the cables and upgrading stuff, or indeed office-desk gaming. To each its own, but not understanding the appeal of closed gaming systems and just going "la la la la, I can't hear you, shits allover the consoles" is a bit weak.

    on-topic: Couldn't care less about this game. BulletStorm is my kind of FPS.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 19:14

  • Goodfella #110 11 months ago

    Quelle surprise, the worlds biggest 360 fanboy pipes up with nothing of any interest to say as usual.

  • jackdoe #111 11 months ago

    15 FPS drop is ludicrous. How could CryTek ship something like that? Cut back on effects if the framerate gets that bad.

  • miiiguel #112 11 months ago

    You're a very bullish person Goodfella. Drop that us and them shit, is getting old. There's no tribes here, ffs, grow up.

  • coolbritannia #113 11 months ago

    Goodfella, i think you're confusing me with Negotiator. Unless my previously stated opinion of 'buy Crysis 2 for whatever console your friends list takes preference on, unless you've got a decent PC which will clearly run it better' qualifies me for a 360 fanboy?

    I just thought it was funny, I thought of you, then read that you'd thought of you too. Glad I'm not the only one who sees the PS3 bias in your posts though. It's ok to admit it, I have a 360 bias as I don't own a PS3. As long as we're not destroying the internets with pointless fanboy rage like Negotiator etc where's the harm?

    That said, any fanboy fapping over Crysis 2 needs their head examining, it's basically achieved parity on both consoles.

  • kirankara #114 11 months ago

    @ retroghost

    The face off been updated and now reads 360 at 1152x720p

    Good to know we have a reliable source here in the face off lol

    @ whoever it was

    Surely if someone owns a ps3 and pc , and ps3 is inferior overall they entitled to buy pc one , if the benefits outweigh negatives for them??
    If it's a case that a ps3 title wins and they have more mates on psn than pc etc , it makes more sense to say they will get on ps3.??
    I get ur point though that some people hide behind mask of impartiality and use pc as part of that.
    Pc wins everytime, and I'd happily play on pc if it didn't mean losing out on some exclusives , and I had money to fund it. It clearly wins all contests graphically , and I'm not huge online player so not worried bout missing out on live etc( although I'm sure pc players would kick my arse all over place on fps)

    I'm still trying to decide if I should go for crysis on 360 as I have kz3 as current choice shooter on ps3, and it's bit sharper on 360 , or ps3 as I prefer pad

  • BAM! #115 11 months ago

    "Still, enjoy your sub-HD version of Crysis and the next time a 360 game is sub-HD, do make sure you turn up to contradict yourselves by saying "sub-HD, lol" as always."

    Read the article again, the 360 version is sub-HD as well.

    Sub-HD, lol.

  • Goodfella #116 11 months ago

    @ miiguel

    Really not understanding your use of the word 'bullish' there.

    @ coolb

    Negotiator is in a league of his own, an utter twat. You on the other hand are biased towards the 360, as I am towards the PS3, no there's nothing wrong with that as you said. Annoying that people presume things though, I'm as much a PC fan as I am a PS3 fan.

  • miiiguel #117 11 months ago

    @ Goodfella : a bit of drama might be fun, but I didn't mention 360 or PS3 or whatever in my post, still you had to make a comment, like many before - most of them xenophobic, just because you need to put people in boxes "360 box"; "PS3 box" et cetera. That *is* old. Then again I'm probably twice your age and don't understand the need to go competitive on every fucking issue. I prefer coop nowdays.

    Later, out to dinner, and probably fuck too.

  • dsmx #118 11 months ago

    For the record a consistent frame rate all the time is preferable to a higher frame rate some of the time. So if you care about that sort of thing which presumably all the fanboys seem to be on this board the ps3 version is better version to have.

  • Badassbab #119 11 months ago

    The biggest loser of this H2H?

    Unreal Engine 3! Hope to see more use of CryEngine 3 from other developers and I'm sure it will be improved upon just liike UE3 has. At least CE3 has god rays on both consoles. Downside is lower res compared to UE3 but it could change.

  • Murton #120 11 months ago

    Seems to me looking at the raw stats that both version are as bad as each other. They both feature a framerate well below what was originally boasted and at a lower resolution. One version tears despite apparently being Vsynched and the other has a more stable but slightly lower average FPS, swings and roundabouts. Seems that CE3 isn't quite as "platform agnostic" as CryTek made it out to be, I guess that means it's up to ID and the Tech5 engine to discover the Holy Grail that is true platform parity or finally prove that the only way to make truly great games for all platforms is to develop with multiple engines, one for each platform.

    A bit disappointed by the shortcut with 3D, I'd quite like some more 3D content to justify my TV but from the sounds of things the effect isn't much cop here and when combined with the other weaknesses that the game presents there's an important question of quality that must be asked. With so many of the visuals on offer failing to live up to the hype, is adding another disappointment from the 3D implementation going to leave a bad taste in the mouth? Think I'm going to wait a while on this one personally, there's so many great games in the coming weeks that I can't go day one on everything, some will have to wait so this may as well be one of them.


    Lastly, regarding post #1 - I find myself much in agreement with the quoted post from NeoGaf. While Leadbetter's analysis often goes deeper than Lens of Truth his write up is certainly tainted by personal opinion and it does hurt his credibility, though Lens of Truth can hardly claim the moral high ground. Reading the analysis and going over the raw data it's pretty clear that both versions have their ups and downs, but his writeup of these is far from balanced, as pointed out in both the quoted post and pretty much every Face Off comments thread ever. He has improved somewhat since 2009 where he used to talk more about hardware while comparing software, but the bias is still there and until he defeats that particular demon he's going to be subject to heavy criticism and deservedly so.

  • kirankara #121 11 months ago

    @dsmx
    I thought 360 had more stable frame rate overall and ps3 fluctuated most( but dropped less extremely)?? Now I'm confused lol

    @umbriel shhhhhhh conspiracy theories will get u shot down by CIA
    I do admit it kinda erodes ur faith in the face off process when u see amateur mistakes like that.
    Although still trust it more than ign and their stick poking if screen process lol

  • Zappa #122 11 months ago

    So much for being graphic king. Game looks so blurry and jaggie with zero good textures ,Killzone 3 looks far better!

  • ronuds #123 11 months ago

    @ dmsx They said the 360 has a more stable constant framerate more than once. The PS3 has the better framerate in certain intense firefights.

    Can you people not read?

    It's like, people read something and then say the exact opposite and say, "see, DF doesn't know what they're talking about!" I'm sorry to say, but it is your reading comprehension that is lacking and not DFs expertise.
    Edited by 2 at 24/03/11 @ 20:18

  • kirankara #124 11 months ago

    Bit harsh Zappa , but agree with conclusion tbh
    On neo gag someone was saying it's best looking game ever etc, they used some screen shots of kz3 to compare. I was sitting looking at it thinking,hmmmn maybe they right, but couldn't remember game looking that poor. Someone else posted uncompressed screen shots and was like wow, that's game I remember. Clean sharp lines( some dodgy textures too let's not be deluded).
    As bit tech tech said crysis 2 seems to be mix of amazing and unacceptable visuals

  • bladdard #125 11 months ago

    1024 x 720 = 737280
    1152 x 720 = 829440

    829440 - 737280 = 92160

    92160 / 829440 * 100 = 11.1% recurring not 12.5%

    Not that it matters but Leadbetters maths are as broken as his resolution testing mechanism.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 20:08

  • carlosdfn #126 11 months ago

    Richard corrected the 360 resolution in the article, it now says 1152x720.

  • kirankara #127 11 months ago

    @ ronuds, that was my point.
    I asked as surely that was what they were saying. My question to dsmx was based on fact I was thinking that maybe the middle ground of ps3 frame rate might be slight improvement of the extremes of 360 one , which drops lower.
    I'm not totally retarded mate lol

  • technicianTed #128 11 months ago

    Looks close on both systems, closer than some people expected.

    I'm disappointed the video doesn't show the heavy framerate dropping on both systems so i can see how much the respective versions drop by.
    I'm also disappointed a multiplayer comparison wasn't mentioned here either as i've heard some ps3 owners moaning about the poor performance on their machine.
    Hopefully we can get an update on that.

    It reads like a close 360 win, but there's not as much in it as some people thought on the single player anyway.

  • kirankara #129 11 months ago

    @ted,

    I was just asking bout this on the other thread.

    Hoping lot analysis will deal with mp

  • ronuds #130 11 months ago

    @ kirankara

    Sorry - I re-read your post and realize my mistake.

    Let's not bring up KZ3, though... because then the retardification of this comments section will be complete - and up to now it hasn't been so bad!

  • kirankara #131 11 months ago

    @ronuds

    Yeah I've stated my opinion and that's me done with that conversation. As I said I thought zappas comment was bit harsh, which translates to , dude ur making fool of urself , as crysis is still stunning even if I don't think it's best looking console game ever.

  • Zerobob #132 11 months ago

    You had me at 1152x720 :)

    I mean surely any areas where the PS3 outperforms the 360 version are ultimately undermined by the 12.5% less resolution on PS3. Flicking between this screenshot and this screenshot the drop in clarity that this causes is obvious.

  • carlosdfn #133 11 months ago

    Here's some additional info taken from a document published by Cryteck:

    The lowest PC spec, “High”, is almost the same as the spec used on consoles, besides per-platform differences, such as different texture formats for render targets and different normal map formats on PS3 due to lack of 3Dc support. PC specs also feature improved texture quality, since we do not use streaming for PC due to the vast memory resources available. Anisotropic filtering is enabled for all specs, while on PS3 it is dynamically adjusted and goes up to 16x anisotropic, and on Xbox 360 it is limited to 4x anisotropic in order to reduce the performance cost.

  • Goodfella #134 11 months ago

    @ miiguel

    What the fuck are you rambling on about?

  • albinas #135 11 months ago

    @bladdard Richard takes ps3 resolution as 100% to make per
    centage look bigger :) I can spin it in favor of ps3 a little more:
    1280x720 - 100%
    1152x720 - x%
    1024x720 - y%

    x=(1152*100)/1280=90%
    y=(1024*100)/1280=80%
    x-y=10% difference :)

  • byakuya83 #136 11 months ago

    in terms of visual performance how does killzone 3 rate for resolution, frames per second, anti-aliasing, v-synch and all the other jargon that make it look good and run smoothly?

  • bladdard #137 11 months ago

    @albinas

    Ah that explains it, as I've said it's neither here nor there I just thought he was having an even bigger off day.

  • ronuds #138 11 months ago

    The meltdown has begun.

    At least it almost took 150 comments. Those who contributed earlier should take a bow.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 20:52

  • kirankara #139 11 months ago

    Any one got it on ps3 and can confirm how mp runs in terms of frame rate ??

  • coolbritannia #140 11 months ago

    @miiiiiiiiiiguel, if you were twice Goodfella's age, you'd be dead.

    *apologies to Goodfella

  • Goodfella #141 11 months ago

    The meltdown has begun.

    At least it almost took 150 comments. Those who contributed earlier should take a bow.

    My first post on page one was very sensible, unbiased and rational, but apparently I'm a raging, bullish xenophobic PS3 fanboy who catergorizes people into boxes and is way past pension age.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 21:06

  • vizzini #142 11 months ago

    bladdard: 92160 / 829440 * 100 = 11.1% recurring not 12.5%

    I wonder if the maths would be 12.5% using an erroneous 1280x720 measurement for 360?

    Inline with Murton's comment.

    DF: You might notice a difference in the aspect ratio of the HUD between the two versions of Crysis 2, with the text and other elements being considerably wider on PS3 than they are on the Xbox 360 release. The reason here is fairly straightforward: while Crysis 2 runs at 1152x720 resolution on the Microsoft platform, PS3 operates at a base resolution of 1024x720.

    The DF statement might have been true, except that the 360 3D hud has chubbier graphics, that are closer to the left/right borders than the PS3 equivalent (fullscreen) shots.

    PS3 pic

    360 pic

    So his statement seems wrong, because stretching the PS3 viewport by an extra 128pixels would produce the reverse chubbier effect (on its 3D hud); if the render volumes were equal size and shape.

    So something on these renderers is keeping the effective resolution on PS3's 3D hud higher.

    Although the pictures still look digitally zoomed to me and cropped relative to EA 720p youtube video footage I watched some days ago. But DF wouldn't do that, and if they claim pixel counting shows both are Sub-HD, and PS3 @ a lowly 1024x720 then it must be true.

    But actual nagging issues; like the PC/PS3 versions having different lighting from the ?bug free? 360 lighting DF attributes to the ps3 SKU is odd.

    As is the PC and PS3 footage sharing the same 3D hud rendering positions, but each with different resolution ratios.

    I also don't recall DF backing up LoT analysis about screen tearing on the 360, so clearly that is another error or LoT/DF are reviewing different code, or some other explanation.

  • warbo #143 11 months ago

    @Retro_Ghost. A lot of things are clearly wrong with that neogaf posters response. It's either very poor eyesight or they're not really interested in a proper comparison. There are no examples of better textures in the PS3 version here, just blurrier overall image quality.

    Textures definitely look much better on the 360 version with the higher resolution frame buffer. Distant ground textures are clearer on PS3 with better texuture filtering, mentioned in the face-off. From every other angle though, the 360 version wins. Mostly down to the slightly better IQ.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 21:11

  • CaLeDee #144 11 months ago

    People care too much about stupid shit.

  • Widge #145 11 months ago

    My computer has buttons

  • DavidBoring #146 11 months ago

    eurogamer germany rated the ps3 version one point down compared to the pc and xbox360-versions. mh, accordings to this article it is maybe a little bit disproportionate

  • Goodfella #147 11 months ago

    [link url=http://www.hardocp.com/news/2011/03/23/ crysis_2_pretty_much_sucks_sloppy/
    ]http://ww w.hardocp.com/news/2011/03/23/c...[/link]

    Amen.

  • Zappa #148 11 months ago

    quote-''in terms of visual performance how does killzone 3 rate for resolution, frames per second, anti-aliasing, v-synch and all the other jargon that make it look good and run smoothly? ''


    ^^Far better. Killzone beats it in everything you mentioned by good margin.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 21:34

  • Goodfella #149 11 months ago

    Yes, I'm not a fan of Killzone but technically it squats over Crysis 2 (console) and has a dump on it.

  • Syrette #150 11 months ago

    Some of you make me embarrassed to be a gamer.

  • DiamondIce #151 11 months ago

    It's all good 'fun' in an e-willy waving kind of way.

    But I agree; a high percentage of comments are an embarrassment.

    I'll stick to playing the game rather than arguing about beams of light through a tree in the breeze.

  • coolbritannia #152 11 months ago

    @ Goodfella '[link url=http://ww w.hardocp.com/news/2011/03/23/c...
    ]http://ww w.hardocp.com/news/2011/03/23/c...[/link]

    Amen.'

    If you seriously believe that you're actually more of a raging fanboy than I thought dude...this is my problem with you, sometimes you do not practice what you preach. Call for moderation and impartiality on one hand and hold links like that in the other.

  • Goodfella #153 11 months ago

    FFS Coolb, get a sense of humour, it was posted as a joke. Maybe I should have put a 'lol' at the end, which was what I initially intended to do, but no, I foolishly assumed it wouldn't be taken seriously.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 22:05

  • bladdard #154 11 months ago

    @vizzina

    The article stated a 25% resolution difference before they revised the xbox figure. It seems the figure is correct if you consider the PS3 resolution to be 100%.

  • ronuds #155 11 months ago

    "My first post on page one was very sensible, unbiased and rational, but apparently I'm a raging, bullish xenophobic PS3 fanboy who catergorizes people into boxes and is way past pension age."

    Your comments were prior to post 150, so you're good. :p

    Once people started quabbling over the 1% difference in resolutions, that's when everything started going to hell.

    Also, how do you put comments in italics in this section?!?
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 22:27

  • BIGJOEJGDE #156 11 months ago

    kirankara:Any one got it on ps3 and can confirm how mp runs in terms of frame rate ??

    It's smooth no screen tearing controls are responsive it doesn't take long to get into a match...I like it.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 22:40

  • Goodfella #157 11 months ago

    Also, how do you put comments in italics in this section?!?

    It tells you under the comments box. Basic html really.

  • BuckEntropy #158 11 months ago

    Well this is all a little weirder than usual, predicated in part on the initial resolution error - which I didn't see, only now reading the article - and a lot of other small imaging differences in dispute. But if anything I'm encouraged by this precedent for CE3, allowing for each platform to have it's ups and downs seems a more 'enlightened' approach (imo) than crushing everything down to the size of a single mold that will fit into both machines.

    I believe there's a strange omission in the article though, as many indicators suggest triple-buffering implemented for the PS3. The hard vsync (exclusive to PS3) seems all but conclusive in the first place, and even the memory issues may corroborate. But it's really the only way to explain the PS3 version performing better only when performance is already crashing. In fact it's exactly the advantage you would expect from a triple-buffered setup vs a double-buffered. So that's actually two very high profile games now with no mention of a possible latency difference...

    I've never said Leadbetter wasn't political, in fact he may be almost brilliant about it. *shrug*

  • kirankara #159 11 months ago

    ok, thanks to BIGJOEJGDE for answering my question about mp

    @bladdard, it is a bit naughty to use ps3 as 100% though isnt it, especially in original figures they used, it sounds a lot more to say 20% than other way, and im pretty sure he knows it(dramatic journalism)

    why cant i frickin just quote a person in this section like in other thread???
    its fuckin annoying.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 22:49

  • Negotiator #160 11 months ago

    What is incredible is that the 360 version runs the game at 12.5 percent higher resolution than the PS3 version, and still manages to have a better frame rate most of the time. On the very intense areas of the game the 360 version takes a slightly worse frame rate hit than the PS3 version because of the far higher screen resolution, its amazing that the 360 can out perform the newer console. Also Richard down played the significant resolution advantage the 360 has over the PS3 version because of the PS3 owners always saying the Xbox is his favourite, its not true of course, but well done Richard I think they believed you.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 22:55

  • ronuds #161 11 months ago

    It tells you under the comments box. Basic html really.

    How about that - I'm blind. Thanks!

    I was trying to use [
    Edited by 2 at 24/03/11 @ 22:55

  • kirankara #162 11 months ago

    thank you negotiator uve restored my faith in humanity. I was just beginning to think you everything i thought i knew about world was wrong, as u hadnt come and made total cunt of urself in last few hrs, but nope u are back and have made a bigger cunt of urself than previously, and all is right again with the world

  • oi #163 11 months ago

    "The question now is whether the PC version of the game manages to power past these problems, and thus provide the ultimate Crysis 2 experience"

    A question that doesn't need to be asked because everyone already knows the asnswer. I mean for gods sake. :/

    sigh

  • Goodfella #164 11 months ago

    @ kirankara

    I was worried too, fortunately Negotiator didn't let us down and presented us with his usual bollocks.

  • kirankara #165 11 months ago

    If pc version didn't provide ultimate experience the world would be unbalanced again and I'd need negotiator to be a bigger cunt than before ( he makes it look easy) to restore the balance.

    Purely for interests sake i Read somewhere( neogaf I think) that some people are returning pc version as they having issues with it though

  • Negotiator #166 11 months ago

    It is a crying shame that the PS3 couldn't handle the higher resolution, but I guess CryEngine 3 is just too advanced. Got the 360 version today and it is amazing, it's not without its faults but with so much detail and scope in the game the graphical shortcomings can be forgiven.

  • Machiavellian #167 11 months ago

    Yes, I'm not a fan of Killzone but technically it squats over Crysis 2 (console) and has a dump on it.

    The single biggest problem I have with statement like this is that they are based on the simple stuff you see and not what you don't see. It doesn't take in the design decisions that make up both games and how those can determine what is presented on the screen. Can you Mr. Goodfella tell us exacly why KZ3 technically squats over Crysis 2 or are you just going on the bits you see instead of know whats actually going on between the two games.

  • MegaCadet #168 11 months ago

    Guys. Stop attacking Richard. We all have our opinions. I view these articles the way it was intended. I look at the facts about the resolution and framerate differences and make my own conclusion about it.

    My conclusion:

    -360 runs at a slightly higher resolution, making the game look a tad sharper.
    -PS3 has better texture filtering, making the textures look a tad sharper
    -360 runs at a higher framerate during non-chaotic scenes.
    -PS3 runs at a higher framerate during chaotic scenes.
    -PS3 is tripple buffered and has no screen tearing
    -360 screen tearing isn't really noticeable

    I'm going with the PS3 version. It's not really differences in image quality but the fact that the PS3 holds up a better framerate + no screen tearing during gameplay. Though I will say Crytek did a splendid job and I think they really did try to take advantage of both platforms.

    Earlier Crytek said that the PS3/360 versions performed better depending on the situation. According to them, 360 version runs better in shader heavy moments. PS3 version runs better when it's physics heavy, since the SPUs take over that process to help out the GPU. Also thanks to the eDRAM on the Xbox 360's GPU it gives Crytek alot of bandwidth to play with. This explains the slight resolution differences.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 23:37

  • bladdard #169 11 months ago

    @Negotiator

    It's a crying shame Crytek couldn't get a HD game out of either HD console but the results on both HD or not are excellent so everyones a winner, especially the PC brigade. :)

  • SaberEdge #170 11 months ago

    I have been playing Crysis 2 on the 360 over the past two days and it has seriously impressed me. Yes, the frame rate isn't perfectly smooth all the time, but that is true for most console games I play.

    On my display there is absolutely zero visible screen tearing. I hate screen tearing with a passion and am extremely sensitive to it, but I honestly haven't seen any in the 360 version.

    Pop-in is the biggest issue for me. Sometimes objects, shadows, or textures will suddenly pop into view and it is distracting.

    I have decided to sell my 360 copy and get it for the PC. I originally got it on the 360 for two reasons. 1. Because I was curious how it would perform on the consoles. 2. Because more of my friends would be getting it on the 360. But now that my curiosity is satisfied I think that I would much prefer to have the superior performing PC version over having a few more friends on the 360.

    That said, the 360 version is still an extremely impressive game by console standards. Warts and all it is still the best looking game I have seen on consoles. Lighting, textures and effects are all extremely good for a console game. The pop-in is the biggest issue, but considering the enormous size of the levels and the memory limitations of the consoles it really isn't that surprising. The frame rate in truth doesn't seem any worse than many other top console games. For example it runs at least as good as Uncharted Drake's Fortune and doesn't have the problems with screen tearing like Uncharted DF does.

    I haven't tried the PS3 version yet, but given the fact that DF reports that it runs pretty close to the 360 version I would have to say that Crytek's work here is outstanding. Creating what is arguably the best looking game, running on three different platforms, is a very impressive feat.
    Edited by 1 at 24/03/11 @ 23:46

  • risseer #171 11 months ago

    Eh i'll pass on this game i don't like to play games at 15 fps...Killzone 3 is still king as well.Yea i don't understand these fanboy sites..i hope Microsoft pays yall well because it's disgusting too me it seems both console versions has it pro's and con's.I couldn't careless because this game was way over hyped it can't even run 720p.From what my eyes can tell they look the same for the most part.

  • risseer #172 11 months ago

    I am going to tell everyone what i was thinking when i read this article.Ok seems like Ps3 has the edge..reads till the last paragraph..360 runs better and yet it runs bad in areas..I try to understand yet i can't if the 360 runs worse in actual gameplay how is that better ? Eh i would for someone to tell this guy to get his head out of Microsoft's ass and write a good article.

  • MilkYMoO #173 11 months ago

    How the hell can the 360 do this?. When I bought the 360 on launchday I was certain like every other launchday 360 buyer that the ps3 would be the more powerful system. Here we are over five years later and the pinnacle of console graphics is on this old 360 console. Wow!, I enjoy both systems and hate Microsoft and sony equally, but Wow!. I'm currently drunk aswell but like I said Wow!.

  • bladdard #174 11 months ago

    @risser

    It just shows how each person can interpret these articles slightly differently. Here's what I read, Crytek have done a great job on both consoles but the 360 edges it because of the generally smoother framerate and higher resolution.

  • womble #175 11 months ago

    [Ignoring the PC squealers, the DF bashers and the usual console trolls like Goodfella...]

    I'm about a third of the way through the PS3 version. I wasn't expecting much, after the (very ordinary) 360 demo, but I'm enjoying this game.

    I'm quite surprised at this face-off because of the lack of attention given to some of the game's most glaring problems: pop-in and clarity.

    POP-IN:

    And, although the game looks good, the texture streaming, object pop-in and shadow draw distance is VERY noticeable. It really impacts on the overall presentation.

    You'll walk around a map, and things (buildings, cars) will either pop instantly in to existence or will appear with a (very obvious, very large, smoothed) dither pattern (to save drawing transparencies). It's very jarring, and you'll often mistake the rendering system's artefacts for an enemy or some other moving object.


    CLARITY:

    This game is BLURRY. It shares a Killzone trait where many of the background are elements are lower resolution and blurred, hidden behind post processing. This game doesn't go totally overboard with post processing and lens flares like Killzone 2 and 3 do, but you can see that the post processing is being used to (try and) hide lower definition elements.

    In particular, explosions and particles are often rendered at VERY low resolutions. (Quarter or Eighth scale or less.) This usually doesn't matter because the explosion sequences are so good, but it is very noticeable at times.

    On the up side, this game feels bigger than Killzone. It's not a really huge sandbox environment like Reach, but nor is it as linear as Killzone or Bulletstorm. You have the feeling of scope and free movement, for the most part. Given that this is a cross platform engine, it's a pretty remarkable feat. It's fair to say that the engine dominates Unreal Engine for this kind of shooter (but to be fair, UE3 is a FAR more generalised engine, capable of much more.)

    BTW, I'm playing on a 720p screen. There is precisely ZERO tearing. And for the most part, performance is pretty fluid.


    GAMEPLAY:

    Some issues here:

    - the usefulness of some of the weapons is questionable. You'll probably just want to hang on to the same weapons, scene after scene.

    - the AI is schitzo. It's heavily scripted, but ranges from the reasonably clever to plain retarded. NPCs will sometimes walk in to walls or just stand around when you shoot at their friends.

    - close combat is hugely unsatisfying. The range of melee attack animations is very limited, and don't feel right.

    OVERALL:

    Fortunately, it's a fun game. There's not much new here -- particularly in regards to the story -- but it's all handled in a classy way. The graphics are often stellar, and yet clearly show the limitations of the hardware.


    Edited by 5 at 25/03/11 @ 00:27

  • Negotiator #176 11 months ago

    MilkyMoo is quite right, for the oldest current console on the market to have the advantage on the most impressive looking console game to date is incredible. Both versions look amazing, there is not alot of difference, so go out and buy it.

  • womble #177 11 months ago

    @ riseer

    "Eh i'll pass on this game i don't like to play games at 15 fps."

    I've only encountered a handful of extended sub-30fps sequences on the PS3 so far, and they were still fairly brief.

    Mostly, the game feels fluid.

    But if you want to skip games based on some puritan absolute, without even trying the game, well, that's your loss.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/11 @ 00:19

  • SvennoJ #178 11 months ago

    I'm curious what's in the extra 2gb of data for the ps3 version? Seems an awful lot extra for uncompressed sound and the article states that fmv sequences are identical. Maybe the mandatory install data is placed separate on the disk?
    Why is there never any mention of sound quality. Are the sound samples actually uncompressed on the ps3 or the same as on the 360? How well is 5.1 and 7.1 sound used.
    The only other reason for me to get the console version is gone too now, stable frame rate. In the pc version of metro 2033 I had to reduce the effects to make certain parts more playable. On consoles you could usually rely on not having that problem.

  • kirankara #179 11 months ago

    @ Womble, that's the reality of this gen of consoles now. There's only so much power they can get out them , and games like kz3 and crysis 2 have to compromise in other areas to achieve certain levels of detail etc. Kz3 at least had good aa, and minimal low res textures in comparison to crysis 2 though, but crysis 2 has better lighting( I'd been happy with prebaked if they'd sorted few other issues out tbh)
    Only so much further this gen can go really.
    Bit tech said about crysis 2 that visually it's mix of amazing and unacceptable , and ultimately therefore middle of road.
    I think that's harsh, but elements of truth there too

  • Walkerj #180 11 months ago

    Lighting, Clearly on the first pic the ps3 lighting bug shadows only on the rug and not the floor, but the hallway seems to be deliberate. More light sources than the 360. It's equally this bright on the PC, seems the 360 has them turned off for whatever reason.
    Reminds me of red dead. 360 didn't follow light rays through doorways when the ps3 did. Nothing to do with console power, probably just a weird behavior from the different renderer.

    Why anyone cares which console version looks best is beyond me. If graphics are that important to you then you probably have a PC. I prefer the ps3 cause they system is more reliable and has much better exclusives and all my favorite franchises from the last 12 years.

    Digital foundry has a lot of experience with face-offs and I trust them over any other source online. He didn't seem to favor one console over another, simply stated the facts. Sounds like Crytec came real close to perfect, and maybe they will patch up some frame rate issues.

    What Crysis 2 reveals is that console aren't PC's. If you don;t design a game specifically for consoles then you run into issues. People were worried the PC version would be a console port, seems more like the console versions are a PC port. it's all about the RAM. My rig cost the same as a launch ps3. I can play Crysis 2 maxed and i average mid 40's frame rate. Min was 31 over an hour of gameplay. Max was 61. AMD Phenom II 4x 965 Black Edition, 3.4 ghz. HD5770 IGB, 4GB RAM, windows 7, 1280-1024

  • womble #181 11 months ago

    @ kirankra

    "Bit tech said about crysis 2 that visually it's mix of amazing and unacceptable , and ultimately therefore middle of road. "

    I disagree with this.

    Just because the game is flawed in some areas, doesn't mean we average out the highs and lows evenly. Some graphical flaws (at least on the PS3 version) don't outweigh the overall experience. The "unacceptable" is not only rare, but very subjective.

    (Ironically, some of the worst presentation in the game is at the very start! And Richard was spot-on about the FMV awfulness.)

    IMO, Crysis 2 is still near the top of all console shooters, visually. It has the graphical density of Killzone 3, but feels more expansive (and more interesting, IMO). It can't compare to Reach's sandbox in terms of breadth and versatility, but it has great set pieces to compensate. It's clearly more graphically proficient than many UE 2.5 or 3 shooters (e.g. Singularity, Bulletstorm) but doesn't have the scale of, say, Borderlands (a game with decidedly baked lighting and much lower poly density).

    And it's not a bad game, which helps.

    I'm giving it an 8/10 so far, which is very solid in my books. Anyone automatically dismissing this game because of frame-rate concerns, is doing themselves a disservice.


  • man.the.king #182 11 months ago

    Here's what I took from the face-off:

    Crytek seems to have sacrificed performance for the sake of graphical finesse.

  • Surfaced #183 11 months ago

    Good review. DF does it best.

  • stepleftstepright #184 11 months ago

    All I read is another multi platform running better on360 than PS3. However, looking at the video clip, I couldn't really tell. I will pick it up on 360 for the love of 360 controller.

  • pantherjag #185 11 months ago

    ok ok ok ok

    -360's better for-

    Resolution 1154*720 v 1024*720
    Frame rate in quiet moments 30fps v 26fps
    Possibly better SSAO(more aggressive)

    -Ps3's better for-

    Screen tearing(lack off)
    texture filtering
    antiscoptic filtering 16x v 4x
    Consistent frame rate
    Frame rate in hectic moments 20/22fps approx v 16/18 fps approx
    Sound 7.1 v5.1
    3D(image quality)
    Water effects(by numbers)
    Shadows (Less blocky)

    -360 and Ps3 tie on-

    Lighting
    Anti alisiaing
    Image quality

    -Unknown factors-

    Multiplayer performance

    Well thats pretty much what i managed to gather from this article and a few comments made by forum users, with all that in mind im honestly wondering where the argument as to which version to get is coming from, to me its obvious!!!!


    Edited by 1 at 25/03/11 @ 12:02

  • kirankara #186 11 months ago

    Womble, did u not see that I said I disagreed with bit techs extreme harshness, but what I took from that , is that there is compromises that have to be made with this hardware now as they implement certain effects and features visually. I still think overall crysis 2 is visually stunning, but like kz3 ( albeit less so IMO), it has it's share of ugliness hidden away slightly that really show that the limits are being reached and that one thing or another has to give.

    They're comment about being middle of road was based on other things too, as they weren't fans of ai or campaign, but liked mp a lot. There overall opinion was that too many compromises were made.

    Like I said I dont necessarily agree, and they are bit of pc snobs, but there's elements of truth there in what they say. Crysis maybe would have looked better for example on consoles if they'd left out the lighting and used baked lighting, instead utilising what power was available for other things instead . They over reached in some ways.



  • womble #187 11 months ago

    @ kirankara

    I did read what you said, yes, but I disagree with the conclusion (i.e. that Crysis 2 is "middle of the road";).

    Yes, every single game released has to compromise. And Crysis 2 is certainly no exception.

    Some of the compromises are fine and don't really impact on gameplay (minor resolution drop) but others are pretty harsh (the shadow draw distance and popping: shadows can pop on a wall 10 meters away as you walk towards it).

    Overall though, this game reminds me a lot of Alan Wake (another game with huge amounts of post-processing and variable-resolution render targets) in that the overall effect triumphs over some spottiness.

    It may well be that Crysis 2 would have performed better with more baked lighting. But the dynamic lighting really is something to behold at many times during the game, and IMO, is totally worth the subsequent frame rate.

  • vizzini #188 11 months ago

    Just out of interest, has anyone got a source/link that have independently pixel counted the two console Retail versions of this game and confirmed the stated DF resolutions?

    From what I read over at beyond3D it seems they haven't pixel counted the retail versions yet, only the demos (unless I missed it) and are now quoting this DF article; who I assume we quoting beyond3D for their numbers originally.

    I keep looking at the comparative screens shots and am really struggling to convince myself that the PS3 image is being bi-linear scaled by 128pixels columns. It actually looks like the other way around in the 3D hud in all the pictures.

    Maybe a whole article on DF's current methodology of pixel counting, or the software used would make for a good read next week.

  • womble #189 11 months ago

    @ vizzini

    "I keep looking at the comparative screens shots and am really struggling to convince myself that the PS3 image is being bi-linear scaled by 128pixels columns."

    When you play the PS3 version, the word "crisp" won't ever come to mind. The HUD isn't bad -- it's not like COD's "twenty billion typefaces in low res -- but the overall effect (on a calibrated 720p device) is distinctly blurry.

    I've only played the demo on the 360, but that blurriness wasn't there. (The shadow, geometry and texture pop-in, however, most definitely was.)

  • MegaCadet #190 11 months ago

    Pantherjag has the right idea.

    I think everyone is focusing on the fact that the 360 version runs at a slightly higher resolution. Higher resolution really doesn't equate to better version. Hell honestly I'd take the consistant tripple-buffered, v-synced version with no screen tearing honestly over the slightly higher resolution that most won't even notice.

    @ womble

    The blurry image quality is not the resolution's fault. It's the edge blur and 2xTAA that is making the game look not as crisp as it could have. Crysis 2 is a fantastic looker on both consoles but they both look a bit blurry. The native 600p COD games run at a significantly sub-HD resolution yet they seem to look a bit "crisper" in terms of image quality since they use actual hardware MSAA.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/11 @ 03:23

  • womble #191 11 months ago

    Yeah, don't get me started on COD. Give me impressive visuals at 720p x 30fps any day, over 60fps worth of ugliness. ;)

    As for screen tear, I haven't played Crysis 2 campaign on the 360 yet, but I don't recall any tearing in the demo (and I'm very sensitive to tearing).

    "Higher resolution really doesn't equate to better version."

    Well, all else being equal, it doesn't hurt...

    If the 360 version turns out to be sharper, without tearing, I'll probably end up with that one.



  • darkmorgado #192 11 months ago

    My impression so far:

    Singleplayer is great. This game is tough though. Hardcore-tough. Younger gamers might get frustrated by the fact that their hand isn't held, but older gamers will be thankful that, for once, "hard" isn't what normal mode should be. Hell, even on normal this game will kick your ass regularly.

    Multiplayer is a disappointment. A couple of bullets will down you, it has the annoying reliance on iron sights that COD has, and absolutely everything bar the assault rifle is locked off from the start. This is not a game friendly to MP newcomers and as time goes on new players will find the odds increasingly stacked against them. The suit doesn't feel powerful at all, mainly due to the fact that you can be killed so very, very easily and your powers run out at about twice the speed they do in singleplayer. Map design is great though. Impact is a standout.

    It also had me wishing that the game supported keyboard and mouse on console. It feels a bit compromised on a pad because of the amount of different controls. Double tap to equip a grenade, rather than a dedicated grenade button, lots of clicking of analogue sticks that feels very imprecise (making melee a pain in the ass), and the maps often feel far too big for the limited number of players running around them (Skyline in particular). A radar mitigates this somewhat, but it doesn't show players unless you are right on top of them, they are making a lot of noise or you have unlocked high-level perks.

    Sio singleplayer = great, multiplayer = attempting to appeal to COD retards.

  • lagoonalight #193 11 months ago

    Owning both consoles makes a huge difference. I may like one over the other but I can judge these rationally. EVERY, and I mean EVERY, poster who is saying this compares to KZ3 and surpasses it is seriously out of their fucking mind. It does not. The textures while good in some respects come nowhere fucking close! It obvious as the sun for christ. You people are really drawing at straws. This game can be so blurry and jaggy at times that it reminds me of an Xbox game! with nice lighting. And all this talk about the lighting. WAY overboard here folks. It's nice but it ain't a fucking revolution. Good god some of you use hyperbole like it's going out of style and it is so obvious who the 360 only owners are. You stick out like a sore thumb with your ranting and constant comparing this to a game or games you have more than likely never played. KZ3 has a decent story, runs very well for the most part, has very sharp and VERY detailed image quality rivaling PCs at 720p with 7.1 LPCM that is better than just about anything out there bar BF2 or Medal of Honor which are in the same league. Seriously, these fanboy wars have tossed me off the ship. I would rather drown at this point. There is so much bullshit to sort through it is not even worth it. Not for a bunch of teenage morons for the most part. Cry2 is such a disappointment I cannot even begin to understand how people claim this is the best looking game ever on consoles. U2 and GoW3 crush this game. I'll take Halo Reach over this if I have to. This game is the epitome of faile dgraphical hype on consoles. Even PC gamers are unsatisfied with the texture work!
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/11 @ 06:56

  • Dizzy #194 11 months ago

    Ok thanx DF. Interesting read.

    360 version it is then. Will pick it up this weekend.

  • womble #195 11 months ago

    @ lagoonalight

    You sound like a fanboy, actually.

    Right down to the obligatory "I have both consoles so therefore I can't be biased" routine.

    (The Killzone zealotry and the silly comparisons to PC graphics were a bit obvious dude... just who do you think you're kidding?)
    Edited by 2 at 25/03/11 @ 07:59

  • Geordiemp #196 11 months ago

    ^^ LOL

    Yes, it is always easy to see who the single console owners are, and being a 360 BLOPS player I can see the grapihical superiority of sony first party.

    Probably wont tear me away from the dark side though....

  • Murton #197 11 months ago

    MilkyMoo is right that it's surprising that games are still looking and running better on the 360 but that has sweet FA to do with hardware or which console is "better" but rather how developers are making their games. If you're developing on one console and then porting to the other and re-optimising of course the first console will see a performance advantage as that's the one that the software was written for. That's pretty much the sole reason for technical differences between SKUs, but for some reason Leadbetter doesn't talk about design and development in these Face Off articles, only which version he perceives to be better.

    That was the point of my first post really, for all their claims of being "platform agnostic" CryTek failed to produce a game that performs equally well on both platforms. While there's no clear "better" version, neither of the games really stand up compared to what was promised or indeed expected from this particular studio, they're equally bad as opposed to equally good. We expected earth shattering visuals and stellar performance that would become the new benchmark for both looking good and being technically solid and in reality we got something that isn't really any better than the current stock shooters out there, in the technical department at least. The architecture is just too different, a truly "platform agnostic" engine simply can't make use of what makes each console special so the only way to make a great game is develop two engines, one for 360/PC and one for PS3, that way you can make use of EDRAM on the 360 and the Cell SPUs and RSX on the PS3 instead of compromising here there and everywhere to make sure that your game works on two completely different machines, the problem is that it simply costs too much to follow this route, so unless next gen consoles are more similar in hardware architecture we're going to continue to see these compromises in design and development and therefore see multiplatform games failing to live up to the first party exclusives in terms of technical quality.

    Next contender in the "developer vs logic" battle is ID with the Tech5 engine, which Carmack claims can do full HD and solid above 30fps on both consoles, in reality I'm expecting something remarkably similar to what we've read here today, complete with Leadbetter's unique slant on what the data tells us.

  • _alucard_ #198 11 months ago

    Lighting & shadowing PS3 vs 360

    [link url=http://up.iranblog.com/images/wwi2gbire1rbq5x0k7h.jpg ]http://up .iranblog.com/images/wwi2gbire1...[/link]

    some shadows and light absent on ps3
    Edited by 2 at 25/03/11 @ 08:54

  • vizzini #199 11 months ago

    womble: When you play the PS3 version, the word "crisp" won't ever come to mind. The HUD isn't bad -- it's not like COD's "twenty billion typefaces in low res -- but the overall effect (on a calibrated 720p device) is distinctly blurry.

    Depth of field produced by a higher resolution volumetric lighting grid should make the PS3 graphics look more blurry, and if the pixel counting is correct(on an identical frustum setup) the 3D Hud stretched by 128pixels should be bigger and slightly aliased from the bi-linear scaling on ps3 in comparision, which it isn't.

    But I take it, that is a no to the DF numbers being independently verified on retail versions then?
    edit:
    @flaming carrot
    @pantherjag
    Go read their siggraph 2010 paper; they are using the SPUs for some very, very heavy lifting
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/11 @ 10:17

  • womble #200 11 months ago

    The blurriness is not due to DOF.

  • RealityCheque #201 11 months ago

    I have to say in that lighting comparison it looks like the light is off in the 360 version and on for the PS3.

    Edit: I'm not dissing the PS3, I'm just saying it looks like screenshots of different things ffs! :p
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/11 @ 11:23

  • theonlyix #202 11 months ago

    Damn ps3 fanboys , stop bashing leadbetter. Your console IS inferior, stop making excuses....
    =)

    But seriously, its a pattern that has been obvious since the release of the PS3, a great machine in theory but in practice, its like a 360 with learning disorder.....
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/11 @ 09:54

  • pantherjag #203 11 months ago

    @alucard

    Good eyes although i have to say i couldnt see the difference's in the lighting sources and for half the shadows.

    Not all off them are strictly difference either, for example on the sandbags on the left off the shot you can see the shadowing on 360 but not on Ps3 but i can ensure you the shadows are their but unfortunately pop in after a step. If you check out the Lens of truth frame rate analysis video you will see for yourself.

    Perhaps the 360 has more aggressive SSAO implememted

  • flaming.carrot #204 11 months ago

    Do Crytek take advantage the extra SPUs on the PS3? I'd heard not, but find that hard to believe.

  • womble #205 11 months ago

    "I have to say in that lighting comparison it looks like the light is off in the 360 version and on for the PS3."

    You're not going to be able to make any lighting or texturing comparisons from screenshots with this game. (Oops, guess that puts Lens of Truth out of business. ;)

    The reason: textures mipmaps, geometry and shadows/lightmaps are constantly being streamed. You can clearly see it when a level starts, ala UE3 streaming, but it also occurs continually throughout the session. Turn the camera slightly or move forward a little and new objects, textures and shadows are resolved. Sometimes, they're resolved over several frames with a smoothed dither, other times they just pop in to existence.

    Regarding SSAO, the PS3 version does have it, and it looks weird at times. They're obviously saving cycles by not having to render it every frame, because if you you move your gun around slowly, there's a couple of frames catchup before the SSAO follows.

    Also, buildings often have some kind of gaussian glow post-processing added to them, even at the street level. So you can look around a corner of a building and there will be a ghostly glow projecting from the wall. Nothing really distracting, just a bit weird.

    Geometry LOD pop-in particular is harsh. There appears to be two settings: high detail and low detail. A huge tree only 20 meters away will pop in to a significantly different looking model as you swing the camera towards it. Disconcerting.



  • pantherjag #206 11 months ago

    @flaming carrot

    It likely that they are using the PS3 spu's in some way shape or form but are almost definately not getting the most out off them. This is cryteks first expirience with the PS3's unusual architecture. It took many developers 2-3 years to get their heads around it so we cant expect crytek to have mastered it first time around.

    Incidently i heard that Battlefield Bad company 3 will make full use of the PS3 spu's and in doing so will become the first multiplatform title to do so.........so maybe what you heard is true.

  • kirankara #207 11 months ago

    @womble, i also said I disagreed with the conclusion(deja vu here), but the fact remains the same, its a mix of amazing and hideous at times on consoles, the pop in, the frame rate, the low res textures in back ground,

    I think the lighting is amazing, as is overall look of game, but any blind womble can see, that some of the compromises (ultimately the frame rate) is unacceptable for the sake of some impressive lighting.

    On pc , the lighting is beautiful and has no impact on game, on console, it does.

  • technicianTed #208 11 months ago

    I gotta say skymilk that out of those 2 pics your link shows, the 360 one looks far clearer.
    The trees especially look crisp and sharp on the screenshot, the ps3 one looks more blurry.
    Anistroptic filtering is meant to improve image quality, if higher amounts are being used on the ps3 version it's not showing up in the pictures.
    I've selected 16x anistropic many a time on pc games to be fair and not noticed any difference either with it on or off.

    I don't like screenshots when comparing 2 versions together though as they don't give you a true reflection of how it really looks.

  • geeza2020 #209 11 months ago

    /yawn .....sooo what was the result? Is Mario better than Sonic or what?

    :-)

  • kirankara #210 11 months ago

    Geeza, Mario is always better than sonic, sonic was a total waste of time and space.

    i spit on sonic

  • kirankara #211 11 months ago

    Ok i sound kinda retarded, but ppl going on about the anisoptric filtering, can u please show me and explain how this seems to be benefitting the ps3 version? Only thing i have seen so far is the zebra crossing looking blurred in 360 shot and ok in ps3 version.

    ideally pictures to accompany would be nice

  • man.the.king #212 11 months ago

    @kirankara

    "thank you negotiator uve restored my faith in humanity"

    This is what I see when I read Negotiator's posts:

    wakka wakka wakka...gibber gibber

  • BonzoBanana #213 11 months ago

    I must admit this looks pretty fantastic on either console and as I own both I will probably buy it when I see it for something like Ł15 on either format. Previously I've noticed playstation versions go cheaper quicker so it will probably be that.

    One irritation for me is the ps3 has the capacity for 25gb or even 50gb storage on its bluray discs and yet has the same low quality fmv as the 360 which suffers from limited storage. Why can't the ps3 have far superior fmv scenes if nothing else?

    I think we are far enough into this console war to see the 360 is no weaker than ps3 for games and if anything is marginally superior although inferior in storage capacity and sound output.

    I'd like to see ps3/360/wii face offs for the amusement value. Then ps3/360 owners will realise there is no real difference between their consoles compared to the dismal wii.

  • kirankara #214 11 months ago

    @bonzo

    Most devs will say basically same thing, with some acknowledging that if u develop exclusively on ps3 ( with lot of technical and financial assistance from Sony that this brings), that there are some advantages on ps3 hardware.
    In reality this means however, the majority of devs who are doing Multiplatform titles and using a middleware engine, won't fully utilise the spus and all the different idiosyncrasies required to get best out ps3 as this costs time and money( two things a CEO of publisher doesn't want to hear ).

    Maybe devs will further optimise cryengine 3 like they have with ue3 to get better performances out both consoles and edge towards parity, but in Multiplatform overall, 360 seems that it will always have an advantage in some cases if not all.

    @mantheking

    I actually pity negotiator , I used some strOng language and tbh shouldn't have, as I wasn't even angry. If anything his stupidity amuses me, and I just tore into him, to amuse myself really, which is quite sad in itself.

    What can u say, he's an imbecile, but we shouldn't lOwer ourselves to that level

  • JensonJet #215 11 months ago

    Disappointing.

    Framerates dropping to the mid to low 20s!?!? ...with the game only running at 30 at best!? It's not worse than the Unreal engine, it's just as bad.

    I'd rather a game, especially one as fast paced and action orientated as a shooter ran at 60 frames a second. I'd happily have lower resolution textures, a shorter draw distance, lose some shadows, whatever. A smooth and fast framerate make a game more immersive, more realistic, more enjoyable and more pleasant to play than a game whose maximum is 30 and also drops to the 20s during heated battles.

    If effects and high resolution are all that matter, why not just go the whole hog and have a game run at 10-15 frames; it would look 'better' as far as the gaming industry is concerned.

    I'm incredibly disappointed. I just wish console gamers could chose to run the game in a similar way to PC gamers; ie. turn on or off effects, shadows and reduce texture resolution to increase framerate! I know that's not part of the 'culture' of console gaming, but there's no reason why it can't be.

    Fingers crossed the new engine from id Software shows the industry what can be done with today's consoles.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/11 @ 14:12

  • Goodfella #216 11 months ago

    I've been playing this on the PC (GTX 460, Q6600 at 3Ghz - 1680x1050) and as is to be expected it blows the console versions out of the water, not just in resolution but in every graphical effect. Framerate is also far better and the game looks really nice. Can't wait to see how it looks when they eventually enable DX11 support.

  • kirankara #217 11 months ago

    @jenson jet

    u musnt have read article properly and watched the video on performance propely, as on 360 especially, it does drop to 14-15 fps(ps3 generally stays higher but drops more frames overall). Also interesting RL doesnt say about 360 dropping as low as 14 fps, just says that it drops further than ps3, but maintains overall better frame rate. Dressing it up slightly i think lol

  • Dizzy #218 11 months ago

    Woah.. just watched the video. Basically the framerates go down to low-mid 20s in *any* fight and down to 12-14 in heavy fights? (on both consoles).

    CryTek what have you done???

    Changing my mind.. skipping this game. I hate low fps games.

  • kirankara #219 11 months ago

    sounds wise if thats case dizzy, im giving it shot, but will trade fast whilst its still valuable if it bothers me too much

  • BartonFink #220 11 months ago

    Interesting read - 360 version it is for me then.

  • Walkerj #221 11 months ago

    I just finished my first playthrough, wow it was awesome! great ending! i wonder how nomad died though.

  • Lord_Gremlin #222 11 months ago

    Ugh, not something I would buy at full price. Maybe on sale, cheap, for PS3 or PC... Look, Crytek did not deliver. They failed. There are games like God of War 3, Killzone 3... They've just bitten more than they could chew.

  • Quixz #223 11 months ago

    Does it have easy achievement.. :))) if not then i will get it for the PC.

  • Calgon #224 11 months ago

    Ok so I'm not even going to read the comments here, for a game that was hyped up by its developers to be the first multiplatform engine that takes full advantage of PS3 hardware, even hinting at PS3 having the edge which got a certain crowd of gamers behind the game bigtime... for it to turn out actually slightly better on 360? Again? Ouch... maybe they will finally admit 360 is actually more than a match for the PS3 when it comes to gaming performance even with the power of the CELL(I seem to recall the developers stating this was the case, full SPU usage, in depth SPE code optimisation too, these devs will have had access to the latest optimisations done by other Sony devs, Crytek are also a talented bunch themselves easily a match for any 1st party Sony dev), then again we are talking about PS3 fanboys here.

    Yeah I kind of know exactly how this thread has likely gone on ... Something to the effect of:

    "Richard is a ****, he's on M$ payroll... look at this post from this random guy that says the PS3 version is actually way better... I prefer that one but its not because Im a biased fanboy! I own all console its just Sony kick ass and stuff"


    So anyway what do we have? Higher res, higher framerate, water effects looked better on 360 to me oddly(but maybe that was the resolution making them much clearer)... You can nitpick about the other stuff like anisotropic filtering, textures, shadows for and against both sides but there really isnt a huge difference in any of them and when you factor in the difference in fillrate(res, framerate) on balance it is the 360 that comes out slightly ahead... thats the key phrase "on balance" PS3 fanboys were desperate for a "win" here so I wouldnt expect a subjective view from them, to them blurrier image quality is:

    "oh thats erm... its actually superior motion blur effects, done on the SPUs"

    or

    "oh wait no... maybe its superior depth of feild... or both... yes its both!"

    Now I was expecting maybe an edge in higher precision motion blur and maybe that is present(dont really like the effect to begin with so I dont care) but its kind of funny how half of the difference will infact be because of the lower resolution which is something I noticed instantly myself, the 360 version does look sharper. Funny how some people turn a negative into a positive so readily though. :)

    Another good article Richard, glad there are people out there not afraid to tell it how it is.
    Edited by 2 at 25/03/11 @ 19:04

  • TAPNGO #225 11 months ago

    when i look at this game it becomes very clear that sony made us buy the bluray drive simply for movies.

  • Lucodeath #226 11 months ago

    Well I didnt think the demo was all that good but Ive ordered it anyway for xbox, Its great having more money than sense.

  • Goodfella #227 11 months ago

    @ Calgon

    Jesus Christ you're almost as bad as Negotiator.

  • Calgon #228 11 months ago

    Goodfella oh please you are one of the least objective members going, your opinion is of no interest to me, glass houses son!

  • bladdard #229 11 months ago

    @Calgon

    MS fanboy calls out Sony fanboys ...... irony overload!!!!

    /* Head explodes*/

  • funkateer #230 11 months ago

    Wow Calgon, that was some rant there.

    To me the article read like more or less a match between 360 and PS3; the 360 having a slightly higher resolution, the PS3's frame rate not dropping as harshly (if slightly lower on average).
    Both great looking with shoddy frame rates, the rest is all nitpicking.

  • Calgon #231 11 months ago

    @bladdard - Problem with that is he called me out you fool! Hmmm jumping to someones defence so foolishly and wrongly like that does indicate you have bias of your own....

    The irony :-o /*head explodes more than yours*/ *sarcasm*

    Jeebus all this posturing to be the coolest and cleverest does get old fast, Im glad I dont bother with gaming forums much anymore. Funny though in moderation like now! :D

  • bladdard #232 11 months ago

    Jumping to someones defence, what are you on about?

    My comment was related to your rant which however accurate was also the height of hypocrisy. As for calling me a fool, touch a raw nerve did I?

  • Calgon #233 11 months ago

    funkateer nah resolution and framerate went to 360(overall, the 360 did get a bit more erratic when the action heated up in certain sections but that was dipping and rising above the PS3 rates which only seemed more stable not higher on average... that says to me PS3 got perahps got more time in optimisation but thats neither here nor there) the rest was nitpicking which is pretty much what I said, 360 on balance comes out "slightly" ontop... there was no rant from me at all, I just know thats most likely what the PS3 fanboys have been doing whining. Looks like I hit a nerve since that was met with a little hostility from a few of you. :)

  • Lucodeath #234 11 months ago

    @skeggo
    Wish I did look like the starwars kid cos Im a reet ugly fugger.

  • bladdard #235 11 months ago

    There you go again Calgon quick with the insults, I don't know what you're getting so worked up about.

  • Calgon #236 11 months ago

    I thought your behaviour was foolish which is why I used fool and tit, your game is poor and obvious and its not going to work, you cant address me in person like that(again where did I address you or anyone else personally in that post... tisk tisk) and then tell me you arent getting worked up because thats not what it looks like.

    I was bang on the money about the reaction the ps3 fanboys would have, nuff said, its just too predictable and I knew that even mentioning it would prevoke a response from kneejerkers like yourself who posture themselves as objective bystanders but are anything but. :)

    Anyway like I said there was no rant its quite amusing how predictable they are sometimes really. Thats all from me anyway, might aswell delete these last 4 throw away posts replying to people like yourself on whos a fanboy and whos not, that never gets old does it *sarcasm*.
    Edited by 2 at 25/03/11 @ 20:17

  • Goodfella #237 11 months ago

    People who use the word 'son' in a patronising manner should be strung up by the balls.

  • des #238 11 months ago

    360 version looks better as usual.Crytek really delivered,not just in graphics but also in gameplay.Good job Crytek.

  • drumbaby #239 11 months ago

    While I'm quite glad that Crytek did manage to achieve a sort of parity, the game sounds like it doesn't really run that well on either console frame-rate wise, even if it does look good (but not amazing) and so a budget priced purchase might happen further down the line.

  • MegaCadet #240 11 months ago

    LOL at people labeling Calgon as an MS fanboy. Everything he has said is right. It IS ironic that Crytek has been telling the media that the PS3 version of Crysis 2 has been running better than the 360 version, and it turns out that the 360/PS3 versions are more or less the same bar the 360's advantage in resolution. Everything he has said in his "rant" is simply the truth. The PS3 is a FANTASTIC system with an AMAZING line up of 1st party exclusives. But the fact is Sony DID hype up the hardware and made it sound like it was capable of much more than it actually can do.


    I don't care HOW you all feel about the 360, it's irrefutable that the Crysis 2 running on 5-6 year old hardware at a very near 720p resolution is a very impressive feat. Bringing up KZ3 or the PC verson of Crysis 2 is irrelevant. =/ Food for thought.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/11 @ 20:36

  • Goodfella #241 11 months ago

    @ Calgon

    Cool story bro.

  • funkateer #242 11 months ago

    @Calgon
    "Looks like I hit a nerve since that was met with a little hostility from a few of you."

    I don't think I was hostile at all though, so I'll ignore the '...from a few of you' bit :)
    But yeah, less blurry visuals versus less extreme frame rate dips is basically the story here.

    Personally I'd prefer not having the more extreme frame drops in an FPS, but arguably one could say that from a purely technical pov the 360 is the ever-so-slightly better performer here.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/11 @ 20:38

  • Goodfella #243 11 months ago

    @ skeggo

    Couldn't agree more.

    What amazes me is how the very slightest difference invokes hyperbole on a grand scale. The 360's ever so slightly higher res is paraded as if the PS3 version is running at Wii levels of resolution. As I've said before, I really don't give a fuck anyway, the 360 and PS3 versions are shit compared to what I'm seeing on the PC.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/11 @ 22:43

  • Calgon #244 11 months ago

    Lol it amazes me how people defensively make statements such as "360 comes out slightly ontop overall" as hyperbole or totally "one sided and biased" as if it's the most personal thing ever.

    Then turn round and posture themselves as the ones who are the level headed ones. Its beyond the joke, who do they think they are fooling really?

    Its not about one console "winning" for me anyway, there's no denying that a certain section of the gaming community is yet again eating their words... and from the way they have consistantly behaved since before the start of this gen I have no sympathy for them really, if it stings that much you probably have yourself to blame for hyping your favoured console up to be something it isnt, neither console is considerably more powerfull than the other.

    All of whats happened up to now just cements my beleif further, theres simply not a game on PS3 that a 360 dev couldnt match, given the same freedom(from a development/coding perspective), budget and time constraints and vice versa. They have some similarities(paralelisation, data fragmentation ect something which probably brings PS3 to mind for most people actually benifits 360 performance too, it's something alot of devs who've led on PS3 were suprised to find apparently) and some glaring differences too, so its just about approaching the development in a way that suits the hardware your working on best from start to finnish to get the best performance out of it. Multiplatform devs dont have that option though so they have to comprimise somewhere along the line, if one platform has cycles or fillrate to spare on one task you spend them elsewhere where the other platform has the advantage, balancing all the bells and whistles till as close to as parity as they can acheive is reached.

    I dont think anyone can argue Crytek didn't do a pretty good job on the whole, as a multiplatform engine goes its impressive, its also a good thing that they spent the time to do this for console fans(well atleast 360 and PS3).

    Neither console can be considered bad really for what they are but both are way behind now compared to modern gaming PC hardware, everybody should know this so bringing it up is a bit pointless in a console debate.

  • Goodfella #245 11 months ago

    @ Calgon

    I agree with a lot of your comments there. I don't think Crytek have pushed the PS3 as hard as is possible but they've done what most developers can only do with time and budget constraints, it is unfortunate and idiotic on Sony's part that they made yet another 'unwieldy' console to code for, it's only helped MS in this generation.

    At the end of the day the two platforms are virtually identical in what they are capable of, it's amusing though that these console wars are still going from the Nintendo/Sega era, and even before that.

    One thing is for sure, the consoles are showing their age now and the PC version of Crysis 2 clearly demonstrates that.

  • Widge #246 11 months ago

    At the end of the day, I think the greatest shame is CryEngine3 itself. It was positioned to be the ultimate cross platform parity alternative to UE3, in reality it has delivered a disappointing set of results in different areas on both consoles AND rather dodgy performance. There is no point making a good looking game if you find slideshowing it at points acceptable.

    I really wanted it to be good but it needs to be refined if teams are to ditch UE3 in favour of this.

  • Goodfella #247 11 months ago

    Good point Widge, I hazzard a guess that a lot of people aren't even aware of 'frame rates' though, most people I know at work are 'normal', as in they wouldn't know a frame rate drop, screen tear, aliasing or pop-in if they saw it.

    I'm guessing this is something developers are aware of so they don't give a toss. It's unacceptable in my book though.

    Crytek clearly couldn't get their tech running on consoles properly and it's interesting to think why that is so.

  • Ilusiil18 #248 11 months ago

    I'm sorry,but I just don't see Crysis 2 PS360 as the Holy Grail of console shooters nor as proof positive that the Xbox 360 can run PS3 exclusive quality titles.
    Yes,the visuals are amazing at times (and ultra low-res at other times) but the performance is poor all the way through.

    A 5 star shooter creeping to 12fps during firefights is unacceptable this far into this generation of consoles.It's clear that Crytek chose to dedicate all available resources to visuals for the "wow factor" regardless of performance cost where most devs would have sought a "middle ground" solution.Hell,MW2 on 360 could probably achieve stellar graphics as well if it traded in it's 60fps performance numbers for something in the low twenties and teens.

    So the question remains: What would Crysis 2 look like on consoles with a stable frame-rate and full 720p resolution?

  • womble #249 11 months ago

    @ Ilusiil18

    "Yes,the visuals are amazing at times (and ultra low-res at other times) but the performance is poor all the way through. "

    This is demonstrably untrue.

    See the original article for actual facts.

  • Ilusiil18 #250 11 months ago

    @Widge

    I think Cryengine3 can certainly out perform UE3 in graphical fidelity and possible in performance as well,Crysis2 just runs like crap on consoles because Crytek chose jaw-dropping visuals over performance stability.I'm sure Crysis 2 can do both (top notch graphics and performance) on PC but not so much on consoles.

  • Ilusiil18 #251 11 months ago

    @womble

    Really?

    I'm currently playing the game and graphical quality fluctuates (depending on where you're at) but frame-rate dips to the mid-low twenties (even teens) during firefights regardless of location.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/11 @ 23:28

  • womble #252 11 months ago

    Yus , really.

    You said "the performance is poor all the way through".

    But it's not. Yes, the frame rate dips during some hectic scenes, and in specific areas (FDR Drive for example) but typical performance is quite steady.

  • camo_kill #253 11 months ago

    I'm completely baffled by this game. At times is looks like an absolute beaut, some of the effects are quite staggering. But at other times it's a bit of plain looking (fuzzy) game. In some respects (now this is just my opinion) it reminds me of a certain little game called Haze!
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/11 @ 00:00

  • kirankara #254 11 months ago

    I'm with u on this debate illusili.
    Frame rates of mid teens is ridiculous really , and clearly they were what was sacraficed to achieve the level of graphics they achieved. Maybe given another 6 months they might have optImised further and improved things overall, but as it stands the frame rate( at times) and some of the low res textures are pretty woeful.

  • Walkerj #255 11 months ago

    Congrats to Digital Foundry and Crytec for creating such a buzz! I don't remember DF getting so many comments. I guess it proves people have a lot of respect for DF and get upset when its not the way they hoped. I love Eurogamer, best gaming site around.

  • vizzini #256 11 months ago

    kirankara: Frame rates of mid teens is ridiculous really , and clearly they were what was sacraficed to achieve the level of graphics they achieved. Maybe given another 6 months they might have optImised further and improved things overall, but as it stands the frame rate( at times) and some of the low res textures are pretty woeful.

    I agree that interactive frame-rates 8-15fps do not make “playable frame-rates” (+20fps) for 3D action games.

    Third time of asking, has anyone been able to verify the pixel counts on the console retail resolutions yet? Or has anyone even got a link to the methodology DF use for pixel counting? So I, or some else can get round to writing some software to allow anyone to independently verify these pixel counts we take as gospel in the face-offs.

  • Lucodeath #257 11 months ago

    Anyone who types more than four lines fighting about a video game needs a new aim in life in general, but if your drunk after 1am an leaving a comment that could be sadder but at least we did go out an make an effort!

  • womble #258 11 months ago

    @ vizzini

    "Third time of asking, has anyone been able to verify the pixel counts on the console retail resolutions yet?"

    If you're so concerned, why don't you do it mate?

    That way, you won't have to fuss about Richard's figures. The downside is that you'll have to put some effort of your own in.
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/11 @ 02:14

  • kirankara #259 11 months ago

    Vizzini, no idea , but if u can do it, go ahead mate. May as well

  • kirankara #260 11 months ago

    That reminds me Vizzini , I emailed u and u never responded, can u do so please?

  • lagoonalight #261 11 months ago

    I can be a part fanboy because all my favorite games are on the PS3. My 360 is basically in the ready to sell category. Have I enjoyed it. Uh, yeah, for what it was there were some great games. Live games are the only thing that has me keeping the damn thing! I can't throw away Rez HD or the like. And I don't care anymore. These comparison are all fine and dandy. The PC version looks great. The consoles don't. We have all these fanboys jawing at each other when the facts stare you straight in the face. No GotY or best looking game period has massive framerate drops, subHD resolutions, massive pop in, weak textures, jaggies everywhere, etc. It is really simple. I don't care what system you have this for. No 'best looking' game can have any of those traits mentioned above. So why are we arguing?! Because of the lighting. Good god this is incredible. How about Flower's incredible grass? Best looking game ever! No, not really.

    It just seems all rational sense goes out the door when 360 only owners are given a game that might prove themselves the mighty and all important graphical kings. This is what happens. The 360 only owners have always been and will always be the most annoying teenage (let's face it half the 360 owners or more are below 18) cunts on any message board. Yes, the PS3 owners have basically equalled them as the base has grown into the 40m plus but it never used to be this bad. You cannot even walk onto a message board anymore without running into this teenage banter. with basically no truth in any of it.
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/11 @ 05:42

  • TAPNGO #262 11 months ago

    if the posts are more than two paragraphs that person is a fanboy.
    which is cool you like what you like. i think the games are basically the same i got the 360 version simply because the controller is better for fps.

  • kirankara #263 11 months ago

    Or tap n go they are literate and have something to say??
    Not everything is black and White and can be said in two paragraphs.
    Damn dOes this make RL a fan boy based on your logic? Ppl been saying that for years anyway lol

  • Negotiator #264 11 months ago

    To end this thread once and for all, the 360 version runs at a higher resolution, it still manages to have a better frame rate most of the time and it only drops slightly lower than the PS3 version at times because of the resolution boost. If Crytek had chose to run the 360 version at the same resolution as the PS3, it would have a far better frame rate through the entire game. On the other hand if they had chose to run the PS3 version at the same resolution as the 360 version, it would be unplayable. Conclusion, the PS3 version was compromised to run the game at all, otherwise the resolution would be the same as the 360 version and its not.

  • TONYgr #265 11 months ago

    I was going to get the ps3 version of the game.Now,i don't care if it has or not inferior graphics to the 360 version but i do care for the framerate.It is mediocre on both systems.
    This game screams to buy it used,doesn't have EA's stupid online pass so it's ok.Or buy it new when it is around 20 pounds.

  • vizzini #266 11 months ago

    kirankara: Vizzini, no idea , but if u can do it, go ahead mate. May as well

    I will get round to doing it, but to validate the claims DF need to be transparent by scientifically stating their methodology. So people can determine if the methodology has flaws, and secondly if it has been implemented correctly on RLE(loss less compressed) TIFF captures.
    We know the 360 figure is correct because of the remote framebuffer capture software the 360 has forPC. But without a methodology stated and verified, the ps3 figure looks suspect, as the image quality seems to be in reverse on the 3D hud.

    I've been reduce to mobile gsm dialup (tethering) while I waiting for a broadband cabling repair for my 50Mb, hence I didn't prioritize replying to you question.

  • kirankara #267 11 months ago

    sorry for ur sad situation regarding dial up vizz , it sounds painful lol

    @negotiator.

    U speak with such authority, yet what if ps3 had disabled vsynch and triple buffering like 360 version, maybe it would run higher resolution? U cant say anything as an authority, as u have no qualification to do so, and neither do I.

    who knows, who fuckin cares anymore? If ur desperate to claim this as a huge 360 win, please do so, if it makes ur sad little existence better for that split second, before u realise u are a sad fucker again, and start process all over agin with another title and probably on multiple sites

  • Dirtbox #268 11 months ago

    PC version all the way then.

    I'll leave the pad spackers to squabble over third place.

  • HokutoNoKen #269 11 months ago

    "...yet what if ps3 had disabled vsynch and triple buffering like 360 version, maybe it would run higher resolution?"

    BINGO !!!

    / Ken
    Edited by 1 at 26/03/11 @ 15:16

  • jack24 #270 11 months ago

    Just wow.

  • Badassbab #271 11 months ago

    How do we know the PS3 version is both triple buffered and v-synched? In certain cases triple buffer (which increases latency) is better for the PS3 cause double buffer with v-sync eats into the VRAM, GPU and bandwidth. PS3 bandwidth is limited and it's GPU is inferior to the 360's so by capping the frame rate and enabling triple buffer (which doesn't always require v-sync so free's up GPU and bandwidth) will actually make the PS3 version perform better than if it was double buffered with v-sync.

    With 360, triple buffering is a no go due to the limited edram memory (it can be done but at very low resolutions) so double buffering with v-sync (soft v-sync in this case to increase framerate and reduce latency) in this case is the best option and the 360 has a more capable GPU and way more bandwidth to cope with it.

    So really it's the 360 doing the more work here.

  • kirankara #272 11 months ago

    @ badass

    I've no idea how we can know for definite, but it's been reported in several place the ps3 version is vsynched , including in df analysis. If it is, it is , then 360 has a slight image in multi plat game ( big news huh). If it isn't , it isn't and 360 still seems to win by slight margin in mp( still huuuge news right??).
    Pc wins the other two fight for scraps , and i don't mean it in a snobbish manner as i don't even own pc, and I'm not defending ps3 as it's no big surprise when ps3 multi plat is slightly behind . We've had 5 yrs of this , and if ps3 wins whooo and if it doesn't whoooo. It's not going to change ur life or anyone else's life majorly.
    I'm interested upto a point, but this is going beyond the call of duty with the constant speculation

  • Walkerj #273 11 months ago

    On my second playthrough, those hallway lights around gould are definitely ON in the PC version, same as the ps3. It's the 360 version that is displaying the lighting incorrectly, but Microsoft has a history of forcibly Adjusting color saturation and lighting to there own liking.

  • Diomedes #274 11 months ago

    Another show of extreme fanboyism by mr Leadbetter.

    So :

    X360 has some (small) tearing but he says its v-synced. LOL

    He says 360 version is 720p native when pixel counters and Crytek have said otherwise (already corrected ,but still..)

    He doesnt mention the better anisotropic in PS3 version

    Texture filtering is also somewhat better in PS3

    Some slighty better textures on the PS3

    As always ,he doesnt examine the sound capabilities (7.1 on the PS3)

    This has been one of the worst examples of the "I dont care about the advantages of the PS3 version but make a mountain of a 5% resolution difference to make the 360 version the "must buy" one.


    Nothing we havent seen a lot of times...

  • kirankara #275 11 months ago

    Diomedes, can u or anyone else actually explain to me using pictures ideally how the Af benefits ps3, (other than the crossing lines) , and this is genuine question, I'm not trolling, I'm just confused as I'm not really seeing any significant advantage to it.

  • albinas #276 11 months ago

    @kirankara:
    http://im ages.eurogamer.net/assets/artic...
    http://im ages.eurogamer.net/assets/artic...
    notice textures on walls a getting blurry on xbox in distance.
    http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisotropic...

    edit: fixed links
    Edited by 3 at 26/03/11 @ 21:16

  • kirankara #277 11 months ago

    sorted now, thanks albinas. links didnt work on iphone for some reason but fine on desktop
    Edited by 2 at 27/03/11 @ 14:19

  • womble #278 11 months ago

    @ Diomedes

    "Another show of extreme fanboyism by mr Leadbetter."

    Well, there's some fanboyism on display, and some extreme thinking, but it's not from Richard Leadbetter...

    Let us know where we can view your in-depth technical analyses, Diomedes. Make sure you include links to HD video comparisons of all versions.

  • womble #279 11 months ago

    @ vizzini

    "I will get round to doing it, but to validate the claims DF need to be transparent by scientifically stating their methodology."

    No they don't.

    This is not a peer reviewed scientific journal. It's a gaming blog.

    If you disagree with DF's "claims", then YOU check them. You do the hard work by taking the screen captures, doing the math. Report back.

    Until you do, it's just more whining.

  • vizzini #280 11 months ago

    womble: This is not a peer reviewed scientific journal. It's a gaming blog.

    In the real world of professional people, if you state something you need to be able to prove it, or confess you don't know.

    Otherwise anyone on here could say the PS3 version has 960x720 and have just as much credibility as the DF author.

    The maths shouldn't be very hard at all for pixels rescaled(by bi-linear filtering) if you are relying on using a known Xna SDK sprite (size) that has been rescaled with bi-linear filtering. But their isn't a NDA free Sdk for the PS3 and very few games use Sony's Sdk menu overlays now amking that method little use.

    No one could pixel count a solid colour screen of 9 pixels that had been bi-linear scaled to 1080p could they? So a consistent mathematical methodology that works for all cases doesn't exist.

    So either the DF methodology is susceptible to error, or the DF author has the information from a source that is breaching an NDA, or from an unreliable source.

    Either way, it still doesn't explain why the ps3 version looks more like the Pc(extreme graphics) than the so-called higher resolution 360 version does.

  • vpin #281 11 months ago

    Am with those who think they did a pretty nice job overall in bringing Crysis home to the consoles considering the aging hardware they had to work with, job well done imo. By no means is it perfect, in short summary agree with those who think that it looks good but not amazing.

    For all the attention the visuals have been garnering, shame the audio isn't being mentioned more often. Am fortunate enough to have a very decent 5.1 surround setup (pioneer elite paired with some acoustech speakers and subwoofers) and must say Crysis 2, to my ears, has some of the best sounding audio. Gunfire, explosions, alien heads getting cooked by the microwave gun all sounded great with loud, crisp, and clearsounding audio that packed a punch with some great chest thumping bass. It really got me immersed into the game. Enjoyed the musical score as well, was one of the few times where I did not turn the music down to a lower level in the options menu but rather turned up the default setting instead. I thought the voice acting was pretty good too, considering the imo run of the mill story and dialog, actors did a good job with what they were given, though the suit's voice every time a power was activated did get a little annoying to me after the hundredth time or so.

  • DAN.E.B #282 11 months ago

    Is the AI shit on both versions?
    its shocking on mine!

  • kirankara #283 11 months ago

    Dan solo it's a combination of astounding and awful. They can spot u from a million miles away when u can't see them even, but sometimes they are so dumb it's untrue and u can shoot one from ten yards away , cloak, and they will carry on.
    This is on ps3. I was playing at 2 in morning and really tired, but after opening section or two I'm underawed tbh, but I'm hoping now I'm mOre awake I'll enjoy it more.

  • jack24 #284 11 months ago

    Got it on PS. It's outstanding IMHO. Killzone may be slightly more pleasing on the eyes, but what's the point when all your doing is walking in a straight bloody line with absolutely no room for anything even approaching a plan (Campaign of course).

  • kirankara #285 11 months ago

    @ jack.
    I like the ai in kz3 , it's really good compared to that in crysis 2 IMO especially on higher levels ,, and that's where I've got my fun out the campaign. I've only played small amount of crysis 2 so
    Far , but it feels like a long tutorial and I'm going to have up difficulty level( currently set to the second one for those experienced in fps) as it's annoying how stupid they can be.

  • kirankara #286 11 months ago

    [link url=http://image qualitymatters.blogspot.com/
    ]http://image qualitymatters.blogspot.com/
    [/link]

    More detailed analysis by iqgamer.

  • Beek4257 #287 11 months ago

    @DAN:SOLO and Kirankara:
    I guess it's on both versions then. The AI on 360 is good for the most part with occasional stupidity as well i.e. running into walls, suicide by grenade, extreme tunnel vision. It seems to happen more often when you're cloaked.

  • kirankara #288 11 months ago

    @beek

    I was being bit harsh on it I guess, but it kinda ruins the sense of immersion that ur taking on an invading army of aliens when they are so retarded at times. Lol
    I'll keep going and see what my end verdict is

  • Beek4257 #289 11 months ago

    @ kirankara
    I was being bit harsh on it I guess, but it kinda ruins the sense of immersion that ur taking on an invading army of aliens when they are so retarded at times.

    Not too harsh imo, because those moments when the AI does break down really stick out in an otherwise good game (again imo). It's just not the kind of game you would expect such things to occur at all.

  • vizzini #290 11 months ago

    @kirankara
    I've had a look back at the origins of pixel counting on B3D this generation and have to say I think it is a very dubious method for giving reliable results.

    It feels like it was derived to match a pre-known out come(like in Halo's 640p)calculation rather than being one derived from irrefutable scientific theory.

    Image aliasing in a complex framebuffer can happen for any number of reasons, and so counting stairway alias artefacts against a width or height in pixels(to ratio the front buffer resolution) to derive the backbuffer resolution seems highly fraught with error.

    Even if I thought the methodology might work, I think there is another problem with Crysis 2 that makes the methodology shaky; namely the aliasing stairway artefacts I've seen in the PS3 images are less than a pixel in width/height suggesting that the resolution must be native 720p as bi-linear filtering would in theory produce artefacts at least a pixel size, like it does on the 360 images that can be confirmed by the remote capture tools at 1154x720.

  • RKOwned #291 11 months ago

    So, which version should I go for on console?

  • kirankara #292 11 months ago

    So Vizzini , the question is why does the image look less sharp overall in shots if the above is true?
    @ rxd, I'd chose whichever u want most for friends online etc( although mp is dodgy at moment but may be fixed in patches)
    Neither had great frame rates, and one drops frames generally( ps3)whilst other drops more in heat of battle( 360) averaging them out to almost equal.
    Little in it overall,There's good and bad on both, so if u prefer playing on live or on 360'pad get that , and same applies for psn etc

  • vizzini #293 11 months ago

    kirankara: So Vizzini , the question is why does the image look less sharp overall in shots if the above is true?

    You are confusing smooth/sharpness for low/high resolution.

    Real cameras have a finite adjustable focal length which limits the amount of the scene you can keep in perfect focus(sharpness) at any particularly zoom level.

    By contrast, a virtual computer camera (the 3D-view-frustum if you will) has an infinite focal length at any zoom, which keeps everything unnaturally sharp from the near clip plane to the far clip plane.

    Just like other fx in 3D graphics rasterization (shadows, AA, depth cueing fog). You don't get a Depth of Field/indirect lighting fx without doing more work. You either have to add computational offscreen passes with lookups, or manipulating the infinite focal length framebuffer with a shader to pseudo fake it.

    There is no hard and fast rule in nature that matches smooth/sharpness and picture resolution.
    Gamers have just became conditioned to infinite focal length and aliased edges (since 3D games began that way) and it is what you get at a basic level when there's no performance left to do better. So now they are feeling weird about what they see on screen as developers can better simulate (real world) lighting phenomena (at huge computational expense), because it looks fuzzy where it should.

    In certain conditions the volumetric grid used for Crysis 2 might be too course for computational reasons. But on lesser system configs it appears switched off at range (except on all but PC extreme & PS3). I assume the Crytek's plan is that as computational PC graphics grow the quality of volumetric lighting(DoF/indirect lighting) in the CryEngine 3 will scale with it and even be read for the next generation of consoles.

  • BonzoBanana #294 11 months ago

    Can you avoid the frame rate drops by going to 480p? I've done that a few times on consoles where the frame rate was choppy. I remember doing if for some of the add on packs for Fallout 3 GOTY on ps3 as some of the bits like the mansion went into a slideshow at times.

    Its about the only option you have on a console to improve frame rates.

  • MegaCadet #295 11 months ago

    vizzini.

    AIStrong, the person who has been famous for calling out games' native resolutions since 2007 with Halo 3, has stated that the PS3 version runs at 1024 X 720p which confirms DF's findings.

    I personally don't know where you are getting the idea that the PS3 version might be running at full-flat 720p...it's definitely not. Common sense should tell you that if the 360 version runs at 1152 X 720p and has the same anti-aliasing methods and that the PS3 version looks a bit softer then it's probably not running at a higher resolution. Plus it just makes sense. The PS3 version is running particle effects at full res, the HUD isn't rendered at 720p, there is hardware v-synch, better texture filtering, etc. The scaled HUD in itself suggests that Crytek were on a very tight RAM budget on the PS3, I wouldn't be suprised if that (and the lower amount of bandwidth) would lead to a slight drop in framebuffer resolution.

    Besides, your technical jargon basically throws out any value in rendering games at 720p or higher. If sharpness/softness and aliasing has little to do with resolution, then most devs would be rendering at a much lower resolution with alot of AA and effects to make the game look better. Most hit 720p res regardless. Resolution DOES greatly affect softness/aliasing. "Bubut camera/motion blur!" No, those are lesser factors in the equation.

  • RKOwned #296 11 months ago

    So now can we stop with the "360 isn't as powerful" crap now?

  • vizzini #297 11 months ago



    @MegaCadet

    The length of time a B3D member has been using a technique that may or may not be fool proof has very little relevance to the discussion. And many 360 resolutions can be acquired from remote developer/debug tools that DF has talked about concerning the piecewise sRGB curve in the 360 GPU article; and developers do reveal screen resolutions to industry press also.

    The method seems very hidden away on B3D without a proper write up for formal scrutiny, and even if it somehow works at times, it most definitely not infallible.

    You could ray-trace a (horizon) vanishing chequered whiteboard at 2048x2048 that will produce discontinuities in shading that can be counted by a B3D pixel counter to declare an incorrect native resolution.

    In the technical powerpoint paper on Crytek's webste (CryENGINE3-reaching-the-speed-of-light)
    The article (slide 16) suggest that they are using 1024x1024 textures size (for 3Dc normal maps atleast)

    “One 1024x1024 texture is compressed in ~3 hours with CUDA on Fermi!
    Brute-force exhaustive search
    Too slow for production”

    and later on slide 82's notes: Post-Processing Anti-Aliasing

    “As the edge-detection algorithm needs to smooth the shapes of close-up objects only. Thus we decided to make it as simple as possible.
    So we compute the color deviation from 8 surrounding screen pixels in 4 lookups with bilinear filtering and then decide how strong the current pixel should be blurred.“

    So using B3D's/AIStrong's pixel counting technique they can just as easily be counting a 1024x1024 aliasing texture; under going post-process AA bi-linear filter just as likely as deriving aliasing from a rescaled framebuffer.

    I've said it before, the composition of a complex (3D viewing) frustum to generate a front frambuffer can have aliasing for many reasons. And suggesting that counting bi-linear upscaling pixels and aliasing stairways reliably gets you the native backbuffer values every single time sounds like nonsense. Or at best coincidence if it is actually giving correct results of previously undisclosed or uncaptured resolutions.

    edited: repair link & typos
    Edited by 1 at 03/04/11 @ 19:05

  • Lord_Chaos #298 11 months ago

    Thanks for the face-off Richard.

    I didn't think the 360 version was as clear as Richard said though! I have had issue with a screen noise like symptom on my game when I use nano vision & when there is lots of dust/smoke effects & when the map is dark..... it's like a diagonal shimmer that rolls from bottom right too the top left, it makes the game look awful, I googled known issues & there is a shocking number of gamers on 360 who have been effected.

    I would also like to point out...... the textures on the 360 version have been dialed back, its not just the ground textures that are dialed back either, vehicles, buildings, dust, Rocks & water looked worse than they did on the PS3 version, there was a lot more ghosting with player movement on the 360 version when compared to the PS3 version also, the ghosting bug may have made things look worse than they actually are though!

    This game is awesome though!! really impressed with the campaign, I played it through on 360 & PS3..... veteran difficulty, I felt like a real bad ass, nano suit 2 rocks!! it just needs a patch to sort out some of the bugs on both consoles..... AI, LOD & frame rate. 9.5/10

  • des #299 11 months ago

    Some people are challenging PS3 1024x720 res?lulz

    360 version runs at higher res and it looks better.Deal with it...

  • womble #300 11 months ago

    So I finally finished the game on Hard (or whatever it's called).

    The good news is that it's worth the play. By modern shooter standards it's a very long game: at least 12 to 14 hours.

    At no time during the game did I find the framerate impact on the gameplay (PS3 version).

    Some scenes and areas are slightly meh, but others are simply ASTONISHING.

    Overall, a good -- if not particularly complex or in-depth -- SCI-FI shooter.

  • LyR #301 11 months ago

    Quote: "The differences really are Small and significant" ?!

    nice oxymoron DF, somehow I've the feeling you guys (DF and LoT) don't know what you talking about.

    // and some people are way too stupid to read quotes ... never said it was my post you bloody cunt

    quote: = I quoted someone
    Edited by 2 at 26/04/11 @ 19:46

  • Subquest #302 11 months ago

    @LyR - somehow I've the feeling you guys (DF and LoT) don't know what you talking about.

    The outside track is the fastest region, because HDDs use constant angular velocity, and the farther out you go, the more data passes under the R/W heads for every revolution. A fresh, empty HDD will start writing to its fastest region, and as that fills up, and the heads work farther inwards, linear speeds will degrade. Further, as fragmentation runs its course, even attaining that linear speed becomes less likely for any given file.

    ---

    ... Looks like you copy and paste other people's comments (no. 75), and know as much about hard drives as a bowler hat
    Edited by 1 at 07/04/11 @ 15:04

  • HokutoNoKen #303 11 months ago

    Lens of Truth : Killzone 3 vs. Crysis 2 Analysis

    [link url=http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2h ead/head2head-killzone-3-vs-crysis-2-analysis/
    ]http://ww w.lensoftruth.com/head2head/hea...[/link]

    I don't think anybody is suprised that Killzone 3 wins. I am a little dissapointed though that they don't mention that Killzone 3 uses a more complex and demanding anti-aliasing method, better motion blur, supports more online players, has two player split-screen, real stereoscopic 3D mode, better textures etc...

    / Ken

  • riseer #304 10 months ago

    Just seems the Ps3 version runs better in gameplay''wheir it counts''while the 360 does better in cutscenes.This probley has to do with fillrate Ps3 issues and Ram speed issues/cpu 360.It's a ok looking game the animations are really bad and the AI is just dumb.If you want a complete game i would go for Killzone 3 for the Ps3 crowd,For the 360 maybe halo reach.

  • Philip46 #305 9 months ago

    In renting both versions(after buying the pc version), i can attest that during gameplay, you're not staring at filtering of textures or even lighting effects, what hit you front and center is the crispness of the overall image quality. This is where the 360 version has the edge. One again another PS3 version that had more post-processing effects, but gives a more blurry overall IQ.

    This is why IGN, right away, stated the Xbox version was the best console version, graphics wise.

    Also, during the heat of a firefight, the difference from say 12 to 14 fps is not large..lol, it's not noticable, both being basically a side-show during those frames.

    Also, it makes sense the 360 version would take more of a hit fps wise in a firefight, as more was going on, from better lighting to the 12% added res.

    I'd say this in final, after playing all 3 versions:

    The 360 version blew me away, as it came somewhat close to the pc's(save for the 720p difference compared to the pc's 1080p w/better FSAA and AF) crispness and over IQ..texture quality..ect

    The PS3 looked alot more blurry then the 360's, with weaker lighting.

    The pc version was easily the winner(no sh..), in 1080p full 4XFSAA & 16XAFing, i was getting 45-55fps(GTX560 oc'ed), in extreme quality mode.

    However...the 360 version blew me away, because it was being done on a 6yr old console, with only 512MB of internal Ram.

    For the pc i expect 1080p/higher texture quality as a norm, but i demand alot higher texture quality and DX11 shaders, to go with it.

    Right now i'm playing the 360 version on the hardest mode(for the achievement) but the pc version on normal..to enjoy it a bit more..lol

    And the first version i tryed was the PS3's(rented), and i was bigtime dissappointed, then the pc version(bought) was impressive(save for the lack of DX11), but then i bought the 360 version(yeah 2 versions, i bought..lol), as i needed a 360 game with 3D, and it blew me away, coming somewhat close to the pc version, graphics wise(not performance wise, of course).

    btw: 3D mode for the 360 was, by far, the worst of the 3 version. PC being the best, of course.(