CryEngine 3 Technical Breakdown

By Richard Leadbetter Published 30 March, 2009

Video analysis of the GDC demonstration.

Over at Digital Foundry, we often like to take a hardcore look at new technology, and worthy of our attention is Crytek's CryEngine 3 trailer, released during GDC. We've prepared an annotated video that you'll find embedded below. There is a lot to discuss (so be prepared to pause the video to read the comments!) and if the technical terms confound and confuse, take a trip to Wikipedia or just sit back and enjoy the shot.

First of all kudos to Crytek for releasing a trailer that really is an accurate representation of the work it has done so far on its new CryEngine 3 console technology. We're talking about direct captures from the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 with no touching up. In an age where massaging and manipulation of media assets is all but the norm, what Crytek has revealed is refreshingly authentic.

The engine is clearly still in development, and I suspect that there's still plenty of work to do. Most people have already commented on the fluctuating frame-rate, but it's also clear to see that there are a range of differences between implementations of graphical features on both platforms. We'll save the in-depth analysis there for a time when there is actually a gameplay experience at stake.

Frame-rate analysis on the released video? Perhaps a tad unfair right now bearing in mind that the engine is still deep in development, but what we can say is that as an average across the entire range of clips, frame-rate on both systems is at 25.5fps give or take a 0.1fps.

You can surmise that the Xbox 360 version of the engine appears to be ahead in development compared to the PS3 rendition. You draw this conclusion simply from the fact that the majority of shots involving elements that really tax the engine (and thus incur frame loss) are using 360 video. So, early days yet, and I would be hoping for closer platform parity and a solid 30fps frame-rate on any game powered by this new engine, the first of which must surely be Crysis itself? Crytek needs a showcase game for its console technology, and why not a console rendition of one of the most beautiful-looking games ever made?

So there we go. The trailer itself is a very intriguing teaser and it leaves us all hungry for more information. Look out for more soon, including a technical Q&A with the developers themselves.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (90) Latest comment 3 years ago

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

  • Widge #1 3 years ago

    \o/!

    I knew you'd do a breakdown of this!

    Now I'm off to read and prepare rabid foaming.

  • Widge #2 3 years ago

    25.5fps? About 5 fps more than most people can play Crysis at then.

  • Dizzy #3 3 years ago

    >You can surmise that the Xbox 360 version of the engine appears to be ahead in development

    Hehehe... very politically correct ;)

  • YoungPayters #4 3 years ago

    looks very very good! hope good games will come from that engine

  • des #5 3 years ago

    25 fps!...omg
    .
    .
    .
    Tech demo runs at 25 fps...zzz
    Crytek=lol

  • alimokrane #6 3 years ago

    I really hope developers would start using this.. I am SOOOOOO sick of UE3 and how all games seem to end up looking the same.

  • Diomedes #7 3 years ago

    Oh my God Crytek themselves have said the engine runs slighty better on the PS3 ,cant you just stop your manipulation for once ?

  • PearOfAnguish #8 3 years ago

    "25 fps!...omg"

    Read the article, that's an estimation based off a video. And even if that were true, it's a tech demo, it's not optimised for best performance it's meant to show off the fancy effects.

  • MyPointIs #9 3 years ago

    I think someone swallowed a uber-coder dictionary.

  • Moonprince #10 3 years ago

    Richard Leadbetter - making Eurogamer a worst place to be with every post.

  • des #11 3 years ago

    Its an average frame rate,not an estimation...
    And everyone that has seen the demo can see its crappy framerate at its "demanding" parts.

    And its a tech demo without AI,gameplay,etc...

  • Dizzy #12 3 years ago

    >Oh my God Crytek themselves have said the engine runs slighty better on the PS3

    They have not... stop using your imagination for once.

  • DFawkes #13 3 years ago

    I was about to post "Richard Leadbetter - making Eurogamer a worst place to be with every post. " word for word, but Moonprince got there first!

  • PearOfAnguish #14 3 years ago

    You can play Crysis at 1024x768 on a years-old PC, I'm sure the PS3 and Xbox 360 will be capable of handling it too.

  • Buztafen #15 3 years ago

    Well i found it interesting.....stick that in your pipe and smoke it!.......its herbal so dont worry.

  • GreyBeard #16 3 years ago

    Most pointless article ever.

    Really, really poor.

  • Baranga #17 3 years ago

    @ Dizzy

    [link url=http://p c.ign.com/articles/966/966403p2.html
    ]http://pc .ign.com/articles/966/966403p2....[/link]

    Yerli went on to describe how the engine is being built to perform across platforms. "The CE3 runs currently at more or less the same quality bar. I say more or less because the engine still optimizes itself to power of the platforms' intrinsics. So the PS3 will run slightly better here, it'll look and feel probably the same, but the engine is diverting computation needs to power subsystems available to the PS3, and the 360 differently, and PC differently."

  • Wastelander #18 3 years ago

    Bless!
    Consoleers fighting over bones from the Master's table :p

  • DFawkes #19 3 years ago

    It's not like I'd call bullshit on Richard Leadbetter every article, but this time he's just yet another person on a website, stating an opinion with no evidence to support his claims (enjoyable I know, we've all been there). We've been doing that in the forum for days, and to be honest we're better at it than he is!

    I'll read his proper analysis when he gets the real deal in front of him to use whatever those expensive analytical tools are, but until then I declare - Richard Leadbetter, bullshit, good sir. Bullshit, for now.

  • polaris70 #20 3 years ago

    Come on Bethesda, you know this engine would make Elder Scrolls 5 look awesome, so have a word with Crytek and license the damn thing :) That Pine forest near the end looked amazing.

  • seasidebaz #21 3 years ago

    From the video though, as is clearly visible with the two organs sat on my face separated by my nose:

    PS3 has better colours.
    Xbox360 has lower frame rate.
    Both versions will run generic FPSs that I won't be playing.

  • DFawkes #22 3 years ago

    See, seasidebaz > Richard Leadbetter. Managed to get it all in a smaller post.

  • Azazel #23 3 years ago

    Uh God... you made the fatal error of making an actual concrete judgement in one direction between the 360 and the PS3.

    Do you know no better? Ye hath surely doomed us all.

    /readies the sword of flame +1, +3 vs regenerating creatures

  • drumbaby #24 3 years ago

    "Oh my God Crytek themselves have said the engine runs slighty better on the PS3 ,cant you just stop your manipulation for once ? "

    This is Eurogamer. They simply cannot stop.

  • viper_h #25 3 years ago

    lol console FPS.

  • DFawkes #26 3 years ago

    This isn't even a nice fanboy baiting proper Vs article with framerate analysis and the exact resolutions the engines output at, it's just some bloke going "That's better" in the passing.

    Plus we all know it'll look best on a good PC :p

  • Beek4257 #27 3 years ago

    Let me just express my very broad non-console-specific view on this clip.

    It looks pretty.

  • ronuds #28 3 years ago

    "I say more or less because the engine still optimizes itself to power of the platforms' intrinsics. So the PS3 will run slightly better here, it'll look and feel probably the same"

    I don't really see how this comment is the developer saying "the PS3 version is overall better," but you need to relax yourselves! If the PS3 version was better, why was 90% of the video from the 360 version?

  • Dizzy #29 3 years ago

    @Baranga

    I think you need to read the article better. What he said was that the engine will run better in some aspects on machine XX and better in some aspects on machine YY or ZZ.

  • ronuds #30 3 years ago

    "What he said was that the engine will run better in some aspects on machine XX and better in some aspects on machine YY or ZZ."

    Exactly.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #31 3 years ago

    Exactly Dizzy. Some fuckwits seem unable to read a full sentence. The key word was HERE - "So the PS3 will run slightly better here"

    What do you think he meant by "here"?

    This room? This universe? The mind of a fanboy?

    ....or maybe just at this particular point of the game compared to other parts where the opposite is true?

  • mashk #32 3 years ago

    Looks better than Killzone 2, regardless of platform.

  • rhinoxious #33 3 years ago

    --- Come on Bethesda, you know this engine would make Elder Scrolls 5 look awesome, so have a word with Crytek and license the damn thing :) ---

    I second that, and I'd be happy to pay more as well for the pleasure!

  • knightmt #34 3 years ago

    The water looks awesome in the forest.

  • IneptPercy #35 3 years ago

    Was playing warhead at 1080p with 2xAA last night, neither console will touch that...

    I must say Crysis to me was stunning to look at and good to play, take away the stunning graphics and replace them with dumbed down console attempts and it will just be good looking and good to play. won't have the same edge.

  • bmxbandit #36 3 years ago

    So the developers themselves state this engine runs far smoother on the PS3 ... and what, another fuckwit eurogamer sap is trying to state, with no fact whatsoever, that the 360 is ahead in development and 'running better'?

    Seriously, how much is Microsoft paying this fucking site?

  • StooMonster #37 3 years ago

    Who are we to trust here??!

    The ones using quantitative analysis and not the ones using subjective opinion.

    i.e. "the frame count is X with Y% tearing" versus "it looks nicer"

  • mashk #38 3 years ago

    Quite an achievement to get an engine as good looking as CryEngine 3 on a 100 quid box.

  • Dizzy #39 3 years ago

    >"So the PS3 will run slightly better here"

    ;)

    This reminds me of that farside comic.

    What some people actually read is :

    Blah blah blah PS3 blah bah blah BETTER blah

  • Widge #40 3 years ago

    Yeah I liked that forest shot too, I'd love to see the engine put to task doing an RPG!

  • Calgon #41 3 years ago

    LOL Dizzy too true, too true. :D

    You've got have a serious/desperate case of wishfull thinking if you forgot about the PC too, in regards to that statement(it just shows how desperate some gamers are to beleive the hype still). He was basically not saying anything at all different from what most devs say, each platform has its strengths and weaknesses.

    Also EG was kind of using something that is lacking in the people who were so quick to get in their bitter little jibes(haha, how sad you look); common sense. As Spacemidget suggested if the footage was comprised of both PS3 and 360 footage and most of it is 360 footage, what does that tell you?

    They captured footage from both versions and chose the best examples, it's simple, why would they do it any other way?
    Edited by 4 at 30/03/09 @ 16:48

  • glaeken #42 3 years ago

    @Burzum09

    Just check the DNS settings. Eurogamer.net actually runs on the same server as Microsoft.com

    Bill Gates personally writes most of the articles. Eurogamer is his personal project now he is semi-retired.

  • Wastelander #43 3 years ago

    I'm selling these fine tinfoil hats.

  • TitusCrow #44 3 years ago

    There is a engine that's been in dev for a while now it was shown at the GDC 09 a small team who were then bought over by intel. I think its the best looking realtime thing i have yet seen.

    [link url=http: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=APNDEfsqtBA&hd=1
    ]http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=APNDEfsqt...[/link]

    though i think this will more likely get used on the next generation of consoles and of course on pc.

    worth a look!!!

    [link url=http://www.projectoffse t.com/
    ]http://www.projectoffse t.com/
    [/link]

    that's the team's website if you want to keep up to date with developments etc.

    ps - i am in no way affiliated to them just found it in GT and it blew my mind :)

  • Baranga #45 3 years ago

    Way to make us fuckwits, SpaceMidget:) Not everybody is a native English speaker, you know? His sentence is unclear, I was expecting something along the lines of "The PS3 version runs better here, the 360 version there..."

  • IneptPercy #46 3 years ago

    Bill gates already has us all plugged in... The ones with 360's get better fortune in life and better games due to being loyal to the matrix. PS3 owners are so bitter they are used as agents.

    Remember there is no spoon!

  • BadBoyBonner #47 3 years ago

    TitusCrow

    Yeah defo not coming out for this gen consoles - http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=uBPegjNG2... thats Project Offsets lead technical guru who states that this gen consoles were clearly built from 2005 technology and that they are aiming for the future.

    Project Offset looks very good - even if the art itself is a little dodgy.

    CryEngine3 - on the other hand looks like it may very well be one of the best engines to grace this gen - been a long time coming mind.

    The best thing about this though is that if they have the engine running as well as they clearly do on the 2005 tech consoles - SURELY - the new build of the CryEngine for the PC will be running much more efficiently than previous versions and give every PC owner out there a reason to rejoice the push on consoles?

  • ronuds #48 3 years ago

    "Genuine question: is Eurogamer funded by Microsoft?"

    Yes, because unless you're constantly singing Sony's praises, you can only be biased!

  • Calgon #49 3 years ago

    BadBoyBonner yes but rather than acknowlege the benifits received directly from consoles, they will mearly, ignorrantly use the improved performance to say its proof they dont need consoles, only peasants need them. :p

  • Widge #50 3 years ago

    Eurogamer is funded by Nintencrosony
    Edited by 2 at 30/03/09 @ 16:59

  • IneptPercy #51 3 years ago

    "The best thing about this though is that if they have the engine running as well as they clearly do on the 2005 tech consoles - SURELY - the new build of the CryEngine for the PC will be running much more efficiently than previous versions and give every PC owner out there a reason to rejoice the push on consoles? "

    Not that simply, look at the specs of the consoles and they always run better than if you built a PC using the 'same' parts, if you know every box its going on is the same then you can optimise for a single hardware and know it will work.

    With the PC engine they may very well optimise it for my CPU/RAM/GPU combination but then it leaves everybody else out, basically they have to make it work on many different combinations so itas code can never be as efficient as the console code.

    With that I don't think crysis is too bad, yes its a pig to run at top quality, but it scales well and I got it running on an ATI x800 as an example and it was still playable. Just looks better on my 4870 1GB toxic.

  • Krelle #52 3 years ago

    lol videogames

  • tomee #53 3 years ago

    SpaceMidget75:
    "Exactly Dizzy. Some fuckwits seem unable to read a full sentence. The key word was HERE - "So the PS3 will run slightly better here"

    What do you think he meant by "here"? "
    "Here" means latest trailer. Think about the background of this article/interwiev. It's funny, that so obvious and clear quote you are trying to interpreting in another way. There's no hidden meaning. Now PS3 version of CE3 run "slightly better", in future it will look the same.

    "You can surmise that the Xbox 360 version of the engine appears to be ahead in development"
    Now PS3 version of CE3 run "slightly better", so it means that X360 version needs more optimalization, because in future it will look the same = Ps3 version is ahead in development. It's easy to manipulate, isn't it?
    Edited by 1 at 30/03/09 @ 17:51

  • Azazel #54 3 years ago

    @bmxbandit:

    If you hadn't written E102 I'd tell ye to shut it.

  • Diomedes #55 3 years ago

    Dizzy ,shut the hole already .You wanted proofs of Crytek saying the engine did run slighty better on the PS3 and you have it .Stop playing semantics you dont trick anyone .

  • Calgon #56 3 years ago

    IneptPercy actually you have a point there since he said each platform is handled differently especially.

  • Scimarad #57 3 years ago

    I have to say the PS3 bits looked better to me - I don't particularly remember the 360 bits looking more taxing either, TBH.

  • xXn00bXx #58 3 years ago

    The PS3 version will be superior, the head of Crytek confirmed this in an interview with IGN. POINT

  • Calgon #59 3 years ago

    xXn00bXx can we have quote because that's pretty specific and most quotes haven't been amywhere near specific enough to support the SDF claims so far.(ie alot of wishfull fanboys jumping the gun) Its on the PC too you err... noob, if thats really the case it doesnt say much about the team in charge of the other platforms.

    If he meant the PS3 version is the steadiest at the moment it could be that the PS3 version is indeed further along, as always though the SDF(like they have several times already... Assassins Creed, COD4 and countless others) have decided the devs are telling us their version will be "superior". So we'll see about that, there's no reason it should be.
    Edited by 5 at 30/03/09 @ 21:35

  • Avaloner #60 3 years ago

    Amazing breakdown. Thanks for the article.

  • Buran #61 3 years ago

    Both versions looks really BAD compared to how Crysis/Warhead/Wars looks and runs on High in a PC with a 100 € GPU. But taking into consideration the 512 MB and small amount of ALUs in bith PS3 (24) and Xbox 360 (48) the optimization is at least decent.
    Edited by 1 at 30/03/09 @ 22:18

  • Scimarad #62 3 years ago

    Looks good compared to how it runs on MY PC, though:)

    I must admit I wondered what the fuss was about until I realised it was the console version.

  • Calgon #63 3 years ago

    You cant do a like for like comparison so its pointless counting the ALUs, cores or clockspeeds(even strictly console speaking they arent comparable that way either)... the very nature of the PC platform means that there's always PCs that are way more capable out there(except perhaps very early on where devs are so new to the platform its not really significant; since you wont have a hope to see it during that breif window anyway). There are however more overheads on the PC side (GPU and especially CPU) also due it's nature, while on consoles there is rarely as much seperation of gamecode from the hardware because there is just one set of hardware(so there doesnt need to be).

    However this is a multiplatform engine and they always try and make it sound like each has their own engine almost, when they dont but they have come a long way. When you remember it's harder now than its ever been with complexity of the hardware compared to previous generations and then look just how much performance they are squeezing out of every platform, performance/visuals that sometimes bests 1st party titles. Say what you like about UE3 but it was very fortunate for gamers simply because its probably the highest the bar has been set by a multiplatform engine, at the start of any gen you'd like to mention.
    Edited by 6 at 30/03/09 @ 18:57

  • IneptPercy #64 3 years ago

    Consoles do have direct architecture this is what gives them so much power with such small specs, everything goes direct as such.

    Meanwhile on a PC.

    Processor and ram on the northbridge, graphics, and drives on the southbridge and basically then everything has to go through the pipe between the north and south bridges. Its not the most efficient way for games but does have a whole load of other advantages away from gaming.

  • Rodchenko #65 3 years ago

    Site officially renamed to Eurogeeker

  • Darren #66 3 years ago

    CryEngine 3 looks OK on the consoles and allows a passable version of Crysis to run on the consoles which is the whole point of it I'd imagine. It's clearly been compromised a lot to run on the 360 and P3 though and, although unfinished, I expect it'll still retain it's rough edges because, well, there's only so much you can do with 4+ year old console technology with 512 MB of RAM.

    I'm more excited about seeing this new engine running on a high-end PC myself. According to Crytek it looks a lot better but then I'd have been shocked if it wasn't.

  • BadBoyBonner #67 3 years ago

    IneptPercy

    While everything you said is true - the fact remains that you can no longer even buy any new PC parts that run as slow as the 360 or PS3 do.

    I am not wet enough behind the ears to think off the shelf components and general software run anywhere close to the efficiency a bespoke system like the 360/PS3 will; what I am saying is that CryEngine3 may deliver visuals on par with CryEngine 2 using short-cuts that look almost identical while also being far easier to process - resulting in an increase in FPS on PC (relative to Warheads overheads) and a close approximation on the consoles.

    As time once again shows in the PC/Console arms race, the PC is now at the point where it's increasing price-to-performance ratio is outstripping what the PS3 currently offers by a huge margin, and has been doing for some time.

    Where as what the 360 Arcade can actually do for the price of an ATi 4850 is nothing short of amazing.

    Personally I have high hopes for CryEngine3 saving me a few quid on 360 instead of having to update my PC again - or the even more unwanted scenario of having to persuade my 360 gaming friends to invest in PC gaming - and then being "tech support" for all of them.

  • Rash' #68 3 years ago

    Dizzy, what were you reading when you came up with that "politically correct" jab? honestly don't make judgements calls if you are no better than the people you look down upon with such glee.
    Edited by 1 at 30/03/09 @ 19:59

  • Zappa #69 3 years ago

    it dont even look that great, clearly Killzone is far better even in multiplayer.

  • septimus #70 3 years ago

    @Dizzy: Usually like your comments, pretty fair. But your are twisting this, read the article, he isn't pointing out a specific scene, he means the assets they used in the demo based on Crysis. PS3 is doing better with this content and the stage of the engine. No bad thing.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #71 3 years ago

    "Here" means latest trailer. Think about the background of this article/interwiev. It's funny, that so obvious and clear quote you are trying to interpreting in another way. There's no hidden meaning. Now PS3 version of CE3 run "slightly better", in future it will look the same.

    Dizzy ,shut the hole already .You wanted proofs of Crytek saying the engine did run slighty better on the PS3 and you have it .Stop playing semantics you dont trick anyone .

    I love the fact that you two are trying to lecture us on what the original article is saying when you can't even put together a decent paragraph yourselves! You're either not very literate or English is your second language. Either way it doesn't put you in a very good position to be arguing your case.

    My point was that this statement...

    "The CE3 runs currently at more or less the same quality bar. I say more or less because the engine still optimizes itself to power of the platforms' intrinsics. So the PS3 will run slightly better here, it'll look and feel probably the same, but the engine is diverting computation needs to power subsystems available to the PS3, and the 360 differently, and PC differently."

    ... is incredibly poorly put together and doesn't give enough clear info as to what he means.


    EDIT: Added quote
    Edited by 1 at 30/03/09 @ 20:39

  • septimus #72 3 years ago

    @SpaceMidget: He is 'generalising'. Christ sake...

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #73 3 years ago

    So you've now also managed to gather that he's generalising? From that quote?

    Amazing.

  • ronuds #74 3 years ago

    I don't think you can make assumptions either way based on that quote alone. Anyone to read it as the PS3 is better or worse overall is reading with some kind of fanboy goggles.

  • Rash' #75 3 years ago

    and yet if it was the other way around we'd have Dizzy's typically provocative steathing to add insult to injury. i'm singling Dizzy out but there are quite a few on damage limitation agendas in response to this claim.

  • ronuds #76 3 years ago

    Well, the whole thing has been blown out of proportion. All because one person thought the 360 version looked better, so in response let's take quotes out of context and present them as absolute truth. :D

  • Calgon #77 3 years ago

    LOL "damage limitation" he says, Rash' you truely are a fool there's nothing more to be said, how many times have we been here before, with people like you claiming the devs are on your side?(SDF so desperate to beleive the hyperbole about the PS3's power) By claiming already that they have the confirmation that the PS3 version will end up superior? Too many, no matter how many times you eat your words, you never learn. :/

    Wait and see, then boast when the final results are out if you are able to or you may yet again end up eating your words, is it any wonder people take pleasure in adding insult to injury when you have such an attitude and make empty claims left right an centre? (remember you are usually left clambering about doing some serious damage limitation or are in hiding, nowhere to be seen)
    Edited by 5 at 30/03/09 @ 22:13

  • IneptPercy #78 3 years ago

    By all means I am not defending the consoles, I agree fully that PC is the current games machine to have on the price to performance ratio (hence why I have a decent PC myself).

    Just pointing out that the whole the "the PS3 only uses a X graphics card, yet a PC with the same can't do that" is apples and oranges as such.

    PC's aren't as efficient in gaming but the raw power you can get now means that no longer an issue, I still remember the whole PS3 1080p, next gen starts when we say thing... looks like its the PC is the true 1080p machine (if spec'ed properly)

  • Negotiator #79 3 years ago

    Who cares which version looks better at the moment, we all know that the 360 version will look the best at the end, it always does. PS3 always comes in 2nd place to the 360, this is an irrefutable fact.

  • Rash' #80 3 years ago

    really? number of exclusives? 360 second. multimedia capabilities? 360 second. it's all about the games? see number of exclusives.

  • Calgon #81 3 years ago

    Haha come on its only worth counting the exclusives you actually want to play from each platform and thats entirely subjective, enjoy your PS3, by all means state its your personal favourite but take the Rash' "any opinion different to my own is misguided" attitude and expect to receive alot of strong opinions back your way.
    Edited by 2 at 31/03/09 @ 00:21

  • Calgon #82 3 years ago

    Bad track record? They have THE best track record, their comparisons are the only ones where they have evidence to back up their conclusions rather than just their peepers. The framerate counts dont lie, nor any of the other readings taken, their footage is captured in full detail(every last byte as they say) unlike other methods which leave margin for error, they get more tidbits about the engine specifics from the devs than IGN or Gamespot ever do, who just offer a none expert opinion. EG are undoubtably the most well informed and in depth of the bunch at the moment.

    Anyone who values IGNs comparisons over EGs has got to be lying to themselves.

    That quote has been posted here several times already, yes the two contradict each other but EG was using common sense.

    Take a look at the video again and take note of how much 360 footage is in there compared to the PS3, what kind of developer makes a demo real and uses less footage from the version which is performing better at that time I couldnt tell you, it is a bizarre decision if true.
    Edited by 3 at 31/03/09 @ 01:07

  • IneptPercy #83 3 years ago

    I am more a PC fanboy than 360 but I do feel I need to give Rash an opinion on his ramblings.

    "really? number of exclusives? 360 second."

    Actual number of exclusives worth playing on each is about the same (down to taste), do we also forget that most games are multiplatform, to which 360 is better most of the time.

    "multimedia capabilities? 360 second."

    Yep they sure do help me play games... with that to one media element which is useful during games is streaming your own music which works across all games. pretty sure thats the 360.

    "it's all about the games? see number of exclusives."

    Back to the sheer number of multi platform games that run better on the 360.

    Now going to my PC fanboy roots lets do another comparision.

    "really? number of exclusives?"

    PC has a good range of exclusives too (yet again down to taste) and out of the 3 has best multi platform performance.

    "multimedia capabilities?"

    Its a PC it will do whatever you want it to do, mine personally stores music, plays DVD/Blu-ray/HD-DVD + Freeview PVR. Can add radio, satellite etc if wanted

    it's all about the games?

    You like that 1080p Sony promised, well I have found it, but it doesn't say PS3 on it. Will add PC games are cheaper too.

    Basically we can go all day, all 3 platforms have good and bad points, PC is the best and the 360 is the best value, The PS3 is just in a middle ground to me and doesn't represent great value to me.

    But these are my opinions and you won't agree with me, but its kept me entertained for a short while while I type this.

  • seasidebaz #84 3 years ago

    This thread makes me want to hurt kittens. It's like a car crash.

    Does nobody actually USE THEIR EYES anymore? You don't need a machine to tell you that the PS3 version has a far wider colourspace. You don't need a machine to tell you that there are VISIBLE framerate drops in the 360 version.

    The amount of fanboys in this thread makes me want to burn it down with them all inside.

  • Postumo #85 3 years ago

    Learn to read you fuckwits,

    Leadbetter stated that xbox360 engine is ahead in development because it's used to show the most complex scenes, and that's the reason it could suffer a little more. Anybody knows by now that multiplatform titles are better on xbox.

  • Negotiator #86 3 years ago

    Learn to read you fuckwits,

    Leadbetter stated that xbox360 engine is ahead in development because it's used to show the most complex scenes, and that's the reason it could suffer a little more. Anybody knows by now that multiplatform titles are better on xbox.

    At last, someone has nailed it, thank you sir.

  • curtlikesmeat #87 3 years ago

    That was impressive, I'd love to see someone make an RPG with this rather than an FPS.

  • Darren #88 3 years ago

    @Coin-Op - I've played both versions of Resident Evil 5 too through to almost completion but there is definitely a difference between the two and, IMO, it should really be apparent to anyone who has skipped between the two as I have.

    The PS3 version has jerkier turning, which is very apparent if you stand still and do it, and has more framerate drops than the 360 version. OK so neither renders the game unplayable and the lack of the screen tearing from the 360 version is refreshing but it doesn't change the fact that it is still the inferior version when it comes to smoothness and framerates. Reviews often make mention of the framerate when considering how playable a game is, after all no-one wants to play a game with a low, jerky framerate, so it does can affect playability. It's dependent on the individual though as to how much they think these these framerate drops affect the gameplay. Not everyone will notice them.

    Clearly you don't see these differences in Resident Evil 5 but it's a little immature to name call someone who does just because you don't agree with them. ;)

  • Calgon #89 3 years ago

    notmyrealname Im willing to bet money I have greater understanding of it that you do, I never even contradicted myself... you wouldnt know whats right or wrong on any of this by the looks of it, you're a hater of 360 pure and simple and cant stand conceeding when its doing anything better and your hyped up PS3.

    Also frame rate dips are so frequent on the PS3 titles where its been mentioned, that to match 360s frame rate with V-sync off it would would ruin the game, I for one dont mind the odd tear(aslong as its not too frequent) and Im pretty sensitve to jerky frame rates(it pulls me out of the game and frustrates especially in games where timing is important, it can completely throw you off). So next time you make sweeping statements about what everybody else thinks, remember you dont know what the heck you are talking about first and then remember plenty of people dont agree with your biased opinions.

    BTW: it's not IGN I'm quoting, I'm quoting the guy from crytek himself in the respective interview... read something before you post plz.

    I did read it you mug, how about you read the thread before posting a link to a quote thats been copy and pasted in this very thread several times already? Not to mention I explained that in the last post which you completely ignored and made your own strawman up. So YOU read before posting thankyou very much. ;) The reason I mentioned IGN is because you linked to them and they are another source for comparisons(besides them theres only Gamespot and Gametrailers out of the major sites that do them often enough) which are pretty worthless in comparison to EGs in depth comparisons, with professional tools and oppinions at hand.

    I just find it irritating that again internet says THIS and EG says something else, which in this particular case is pure bias/ wild speculation / way premature.

    What planet are you on you muppet, the "internet" says you're right does it now? You are utterly deluded my friend, there isnt another gaming site that bothers going as in depth as EG do, all they do is give a none expert opinion, they are journos who are meerly geussing unlike EG.

    If you continue with that attitude and ignore that sound logic then you are showing yourself to have sour grapes about the real truths of this generation, which is infact far more irritating to see someone spitting their dummy out and acting like an idiot burying his head in the sand so he can continue beleiving what he wants to beleive.
    Edited by 5 at 31/03/09 @ 16:47

  • Calgon #90 3 years ago

    You don't need a machine to tell you that the PS3 version has a far wider colourspace.

    @Seasidebaz Im not sure how you can say you know that for sure and you'll have to conceed that would be a first if that happens, one of the benifits of the E-DRAM means that if any console has a general advantage here it should be the 360, Also as hinted by leadbetter there could be an encoding error with the 360 footage theres a blurring of the image to be seen too which is not what you'd expect on a 360 title(you have to admit that PS3 is more known for these types of IQ problems). Either way though this is the first showing we've had of the engine, so lets not carried away on either side of the fence just yet.

    Theres Rage too to think about, Im suprised it wasnt shown again here on the consoles, I agree with others comments that its good to finally see other engines than UE3 appearing because they will each have their strong points and weaknesses and the games will look more varied if devs choose the engine that suits them best, rather than not having a choice.
    Edited by 1 at 31/03/09 @ 17:03

  • menschenfracht #91 3 years ago

    @notmyrealname oh yes, good trolling. Actually, I'm thinking of creating a Special Flamewar club - for those who like to bait the zealots and then to jerk off watching them SPREADIN' THE TRUTH!!!111